4 ms·

That doesn't follow. If I (an individual) start a web host (a company) and the KKK (an organization) wants to pay me money, why shouldn't I have the right to s

That doesn't follow. If I (an individual) start a web host (a company) and the KKK (an organization) wants to pay me money, why shouldn't I have the right to say no? I'd prefer we had 'freedom from coercion to provide services for bad causes' rather than 'freedom to make anyone provide services to you'.

FeepingCreature 6y ago
And I think it should be the other way around. Yes, that means I want to coerce people to provide service. On the other hand, if they don't want it, they can always stop providing that service entirely.
- jhardy54 6y ago
  Why? I can't imagine why your view of utopia requires that people with money get to choose who they transact with but people with goods and services must transact with anyone who has money. Can you explain why that's fair or equitable? You're pointing toward a world where I can say "I won't buy from X because Y" but nobody can say "I won't sell to X because Y". If a seller doesn't believe in mask wearing, a buyer should be able to abstain from them. If a buyer doesn't believe in mask wearing, a seller should be able to abstain from them. Buyers and sellers are temporary roles we play, not classes of people with different freedoms.
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    > I can't imagine why your view of utopia requires that people with money get to choose who they transact with but people with goods and services must transact with anyone who has money. Can you explain why that's fair or equitable? This is not entirely an accurate description of my view. I think that also, people with money should not get to choose who they transact with on the basis of not directly related properties; the difference is not "buy vs sell" but one of scale. That is, I also think that for instance a large corporate chain shouldn't be able to choose to not buy from somebody on the basis of political allegiance. "Offering a service or product to the market" and "Acquiring a service or product from the market" are symmetrical.

FeepingCreature 6y ago

And I think it should be the other way around. Yes, that means I want to coerce people to provide service. On the other hand, if they don't want it, they can always stop providing that service entirely.

jhardy54 6y ago
Why? I can't imagine why your view of utopia requires that people with money get to choose who they transact with but people with goods and services must transact with anyone who has money. Can you explain why that's fair or equitable? You're pointing toward a world where I can say "I won't buy from X because Y" but nobody can say "I won't sell to X because Y". If a seller doesn't believe in mask wearing, a buyer should be able to abstain from them. If a buyer doesn't believe in mask wearing, a seller should be able to abstain from them. Buyers and sellers are temporary roles we play, not classes of people with different freedoms.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  > I can't imagine why your view of utopia requires that people with money get to choose who they transact with but people with goods and services must transact with anyone who has money. Can you explain why that's fair or equitable? This is not entirely an accurate description of my view. I think that also, people with money should not get to choose who they transact with on the basis of not directly related properties; the difference is not "buy vs sell" but one of scale. That is, I also think that for instance a large corporate chain shouldn't be able to choose to not buy from somebody on the basis of political allegiance. "Offering a service or product to the market" and "Acquiring a service or product from the market" are symmetrical.