3 ms·

> A private establishment isn't a home A private unincorporated business isn't meaningfully separated from its owner, financially or otherwise. > The same gov

> A private establishment isn't a home A private unincorporated business isn't meaningfully separated from its owner, financially or otherwise. > The same governing authority that lets government demand you not dump toxic waste in the river But they derive this authority from the defence of the commons, which is fundamental to liberty. The whole point is that "we the people" agree to be governed within these constraints. From where does government derive the authority to make demands on whom you serve? > hearts and minds of the people changing Forcing people to change their hearts and minds is abhorrent and divisive. I wouldn't say it has been all positive so far as outcomes are concerned either. > Form a corporation, and here's the whole set of federal, state, and local laws you're now obligated to comply with And these laws are enabled by the very same overreaching interpretation of "the general Welfare" that I addressed in my previous comment. > and you've completely dodged the fact Sorry, I've included it in an edit to the parent. > share a lunch counter with a stranger in a restaurant that serves the public. The person being injured is the owner of the restaurant that can no longer exercise their liberty to choose whom they serve. The exercise of this liberty harms no one else.

shadowgovt 4y ago
> From where does government derive the authority to make demands on whom you serve? ... from we the people. Same legal process that passed the other laws those years and nothing in the Constitution countermanding it. For what it's worth, you will find that most of the equality laws you're concerned about don't apply to private unincorporated businesses. They do, generally, scale with the impact of corporation has on the society around it. > The exercise of this liberty harms no one else. I assume the "else" here is necessary because it clearly harms the person who is being denied the ability to buy a meal purely because they have the wrong skin tone for this town. Would you agree that is a harm and if so, by what right do we stand by and let that harm perpetuate? (Note: "they could just go somewhere else" is a non-starter because we lived through that, and a separate but equal was not good enough).
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  It's not a harm. The point is that you're not entitled to buy a meal. You have to figure out how to meet your needs on your own, by negotiating with the outside world. You're not entitled to have them met. This couldn't have been more obvious in 1800 but seems to have been forgotten somehow. > they could just go somewhere else This is exactly how voluntary association works. As I've said before, we've not lived through desegregated public life and no opinion on private business. I suspect the actual outcomes would vary widely by location, which is the point of limited central authority. Who are you to tell someone hundreds of miles away how to live?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > You have to figure out how to meet your needs on your own Do you see how easy it would be for an organized group to use a philosophy like that to exterminate another group? Imagine we only offered service to a certain group of people in a certain area. "Yes, you have freedom to trade and do business and have your needs met, but only in this five-block radius." Now let's, for the sake of argument, call that radius a "ghetto." Actually, we don't even have to invoke that grim specter. This is America we're taking about. ... We can call it a "reservation." Actual free societies are made of better than this. This story is no story of liberty.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      Reservations are not ghettos. There are no walls and no guards. People can leave anytime. To equivocate them is to diminish the horror of the holocaust. It's true that they came about as a result of a long and brutal process of conquest, but these were warring nations and different times. It's also true that those living who were forcefully oppressed deserve reparations. Sadly there are few still alive. Those who do leave reservations however, especially those who do so in pursuit of education and not drugs, tend to fare far better than those who stay. This is hardly surprising given that remote areas that find their populations too dense to be supported by their economies tend to do poorly. You don't need to be on a reservation to have awful outcomes in remote areas. The (few) reservations that manage to produce something valuable and govern the proceeds well are hardly grim. People can just leave. Many people do, and many of those succeed. Our free society produces hierarchies of competence (not privilege)[1]. They're still hierarchies however, with winners in opulence and impoverished losers. More than there being nothing wrong with this, it seems to be a completely unavoidable law of nature. I'd say that's a good enough reason to embrace it. 1. The vast majority of intergenerational wealth transfers fail. People with rich grandparents tend to be middle class. It's (very) hard to raise competent people in a privileged environment, and incompetent people tend to fail in our society.

shadowgovt 4y ago

> From where does government derive the authority to make demands on whom you serve? ... from we the people. Same legal process that passed the other laws those years and nothing in the Constitution countermanding it. For what it's worth, you will find that most of the equality laws you're concerned about don't apply to private unincorporated businesses. They do, generally, scale with the impact of corporation has on the society around it. > The exercise of this liberty harms no one else. I assume the "else" here is necessary because it clearly harms the person who is being denied the ability to buy a meal purely because they have the wrong skin tone for this town. Would you agree that is a harm and if so, by what right do we stand by and let that harm perpetuate? (Note: "they could just go somewhere else" is a non-starter because we lived through that, and a separate but equal was not good enough).

thegrimmest 4y ago
It's not a harm. The point is that you're not entitled to buy a meal. You have to figure out how to meet your needs on your own, by negotiating with the outside world. You're not entitled to have them met. This couldn't have been more obvious in 1800 but seems to have been forgotten somehow. > they could just go somewhere else This is exactly how voluntary association works. As I've said before, we've not lived through desegregated public life and no opinion on private business. I suspect the actual outcomes would vary widely by location, which is the point of limited central authority. Who are you to tell someone hundreds of miles away how to live?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > You have to figure out how to meet your needs on your own Do you see how easy it would be for an organized group to use a philosophy like that to exterminate another group? Imagine we only offered service to a certain group of people in a certain area. "Yes, you have freedom to trade and do business and have your needs met, but only in this five-block radius." Now let's, for the sake of argument, call that radius a "ghetto." Actually, we don't even have to invoke that grim specter. This is America we're taking about. ... We can call it a "reservation." Actual free societies are made of better than this. This story is no story of liberty.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    Reservations are not ghettos. There are no walls and no guards. People can leave anytime. To equivocate them is to diminish the horror of the holocaust. It's true that they came about as a result of a long and brutal process of conquest, but these were warring nations and different times. It's also true that those living who were forcefully oppressed deserve reparations. Sadly there are few still alive. Those who do leave reservations however, especially those who do so in pursuit of education and not drugs, tend to fare far better than those who stay. This is hardly surprising given that remote areas that find their populations too dense to be supported by their economies tend to do poorly. You don't need to be on a reservation to have awful outcomes in remote areas. The (few) reservations that manage to produce something valuable and govern the proceeds well are hardly grim. People can just leave. Many people do, and many of those succeed. Our free society produces hierarchies of competence (not privilege)[1]. They're still hierarchies however, with winners in opulence and impoverished losers. More than there being nothing wrong with this, it seems to be a completely unavoidable law of nature. I'd say that's a good enough reason to embrace it. 1. The vast majority of intergenerational wealth transfers fail. People with rich grandparents tend to be middle class. It's (very) hard to raise competent people in a privileged environment, and incompetent people tend to fail in our society.