3 ms·

Freedoms only apply to governments. Period. On purpose. It’s convenient that you preempted the argument that kills your entire comment, you made everyone else’s

Freedoms only apply to governments. Period. On purpose. It’s convenient that you preempted the argument that kills your entire comment, you made everyone else’s job easier. The fact that private businesses can choose who to do business with, without stepping on these freedoms like free speech is a feature, not a bug. You cannot force someone to agree with your speech. You especially cannot force a business to deal with you if they don’t want to.

alldayeveryday 4y ago
> Freedoms only apply to governments. Period. On purpose > It’s convenient that you preempted the argument that kills your entire comment, you made everyone else’s job easier. Ironic, you just did the thing you accused me of. Putting that aside, "You especially cannot force a business to deal with you if they don’t want to" is where I disagree with you. In the case of a bakery, I agree with you. In the case of what could be classified as a public utility, such as a payment system, is where I disagree with you. Certain services which have monopolistic or near monopolistic positions and being necessary to participate in the economy (paypal) or society (facebook) should not be in the business of policing speech. And it is the governments role in making sure this is the case (as the collective muscle of the people to ensure their rights are maintained). We've been indoctrinated for decades to fear and limit the ability of the government to do as such, as well as indoctrinated for decades to place the rights of business interests above our own rights as citizens. I argue to break this position of slavery and place our rights first. Why shouldn't Paypal be forced to do business with me?
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  PayPal is not a public utility, as much as you’d want it to be one. Until the government determines it is one, then the rules of public utilities don’t apply. Once again, regardless how much you wish it were so. It shouldn’t be forced to do business with you because it is a private business and not the government. It also is nowhere near a monopoly. Plenty of payment processors exist. Another comment here literally talks about new ones springing up. It is equivalent to the bakery store in your example.
  - alldayeveryday 4y ago
    What are we here debating? The way things are or the way we think they should be? I think the latter, you seem to be debating the former.
- scarface74 4y ago
  If the government wants a public payment system it should create one. I can much easier leave a corporation and not give them money. The government has “a legal monopoly on violence”.
meany 4y ago
There is existing precedent for requiring companies to deal with people they don’t want to in order to enhance freedom of speech. For instance the broadcast “equal time rule”: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/949/equal-time-rule https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/949/equal-time-...
languageserver 4y ago
> Freedoms only apply to governments. Period. Then why was segregation outlawed?
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  It wasn't? Private clubs obviously exist.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Exceptions exist for private clubs according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 but with regard to businesses getting to decide which customers they serve, it looks kinda like segregation on the basis of race (or gender, religion, or nationality) was outlawed.
- true_religion 4y ago
  Segregation isn't outlawed. Just try to join a branch of the KKK as a person of color, and see how far you'll get...
  - oyashirochama 4y ago
    Or the military has someone who is disabled, or literally any service or group that has specific physical needs such as Amazon Warehouses or UPS/USPS, race isn't the only segregation method.

alldayeveryday 4y ago

> Freedoms only apply to governments. Period. On purpose > It’s convenient that you preempted the argument that kills your entire comment, you made everyone else’s job easier. Ironic, you just did the thing you accused me of. Putting that aside, "You especially cannot force a business to deal with you if they don’t want to" is where I disagree with you. In the case of a bakery, I agree with you. In the case of what could be classified as a public utility, such as a payment system, is where I disagree with you. Certain services which have monopolistic or near monopolistic positions and being necessary to participate in the economy (paypal) or society (facebook) should not be in the business of policing speech. And it is the governments role in making sure this is the case (as the collective muscle of the people to ensure their rights are maintained). We've been indoctrinated for decades to fear and limit the ability of the government to do as such, as well as indoctrinated for decades to place the rights of business interests above our own rights as citizens. I argue to break this position of slavery and place our rights first. Why shouldn't Paypal be forced to do business with me?

mynameisvlad 4y ago
PayPal is not a public utility, as much as you’d want it to be one. Until the government determines it is one, then the rules of public utilities don’t apply. Once again, regardless how much you wish it were so. It shouldn’t be forced to do business with you because it is a private business and not the government. It also is nowhere near a monopoly. Plenty of payment processors exist. Another comment here literally talks about new ones springing up. It is equivalent to the bakery store in your example.
- alldayeveryday 4y ago
  What are we here debating? The way things are or the way we think they should be? I think the latter, you seem to be debating the former.
scarface74 4y ago
If the government wants a public payment system it should create one. I can much easier leave a corporation and not give them money. The government has “a legal monopoly on violence”.

meany 4y ago

There is existing precedent for requiring companies to deal with people they don’t want to in order to enhance freedom of speech. For instance the broadcast “equal time rule”: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/949/equal-time-rule https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/949/equal-time-...

languageserver 4y ago

> Freedoms only apply to governments. Period. Then why was segregation outlawed?

MichaelZuo 4y ago
It wasn't? Private clubs obviously exist.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Exceptions exist for private clubs according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 but with regard to businesses getting to decide which customers they serve, it looks kinda like segregation on the basis of race (or gender, religion, or nationality) was outlawed.
true_religion 4y ago
Segregation isn't outlawed. Just try to join a branch of the KKK as a person of color, and see how far you'll get...
- oyashirochama 4y ago
  Or the military has someone who is disabled, or literally any service or group that has specific physical needs such as Amazon Warehouses or UPS/USPS, race isn't the only segregation method.