3 ms·

Yes. Freedom does not work if we are not also permitted to make irrational choices. What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? That w

by javert 6y ago

Yes. Freedom does not work if we are not also permitted to make irrational choices. What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? That was true in my home state within living memory. What if the state thinks it's irrational to not be a Christian? What if the state thinks horses are "good enough," and cars are too dangerous to be allowed? Today's America would never allow the automobile to be invented. And Big Candle would probably lobby against the creation of lightbulbs. Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Whether on the level of a single establishment, or a country. Rightly so. The civilized world--if there is one--will move on, and will help the discriminated relocate to free societies. (It's a shame we are not doing this for the Uigyurs--we should.)

CRConrad 6y ago
> What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? The state doesn't think that it's "stupid" to only serve white people; it thinks that it's evil to only serve white people. Therefore the state makes that illegal. (And rightly so. Had it thought -- or, as you say, when it did think -- the opposite, then it was the state that was evil.) The state also seems to (at least to) some tiny extent think that it's bad to contribute to (or by inaction to allow) economic power becoming concentrated in ever fewer hands, and therefore tries to avoid doing that by limiting your freedom to aggravate this concentration. You don't seem to have a cogent counter-argument; what you're spewing is just simplistic libertarian rah-rah. > Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Yeah, right. That's why the USA kept doing precisely that for at least another century after the civil war. (Or, arguably, is still doing it.) The view you're proclaiming is hilariously Pollyanna. (That often seems to go hand-in-hand with simplistic libertarian rah-rah.)

by javert 6y ago

CRConrad 6y ago

> What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? The state doesn't think that it's "stupid" to only serve white people; it thinks that it's evil to only serve white people. Therefore the state makes that illegal. (And rightly so. Had it thought -- or, as you say, when it did think -- the opposite, then it was the state that was evil.) The state also seems to (at least to) some tiny extent think that it's bad to contribute to (or by inaction to allow) economic power becoming concentrated in ever fewer hands, and therefore tries to avoid doing that by limiting your freedom to aggravate this concentration. You don't seem to have a cogent counter-argument; what you're spewing is just simplistic libertarian rah-rah. > Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Yeah, right. That's why the USA kept doing precisely that for at least another century after the civil war. (Or, arguably, is still doing it.) The view you're proclaiming is hilariously Pollyanna. (That often seems to go hand-in-hand with simplistic libertarian rah-rah.)