The two parties dilemma; Strange?
0
In my opinion, the topic evolved from the dilemma of the two parties to a debate over the position to go forward. We're still on topic, as the issue is no longer the traitors of America but what do we replace those traitors with?
I've made my argument for a Guided Freedom, Centralized form of government.
I've made my argument for a Guided Freedom, Centralized form of government.
0
I'm quite tired of this too. So I cut out a lot just to make some final points.
The "law" stepping in and saying "You can't do that" is an infringement on the rights of the business owner or owners. If you stop a business from preventing people from entering, then you can not make a legal distinction that separates your home from the same fate. Whether you like it or not, a business is the property of it's owner, the same as a house or car belongs to it's owner. Whatever decision affects one affects the other since they both rely on the same property rights.
No group is ever totally committed to something. Anyways, we're on the same page here. I don't think the government should force the business owner to allow me onto his property if I have a firearm. I would like that the business allow me in WITH the firearm but, they have the right to exclude me. So I hold no hard feelings towards this establishment, I simply choose not to shop there until they reform their policy.
I don't owe him anything and he doesn't owe me anything. We made a fair deal for my time and energy for his money. Quid pro quo
Doesn't work that way. The deal between me and my employer was to exchange my time for his money. Nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't get rights to the food in my pantry, the car in my driveway, the home I bought with the wages that he traded me. His customers don't get the right to enter his property simply because he sold them something. They made a fair deal for their money for his property and they went their separate ways.
So the fireman that keeps your fathers business from burning down, can freely enter your home, sleep in your bed and eat whatever is in your fridge? Can he also piss all over the walls because it's his home too? If I gave your father a penny, I can walk into his business and start painting the walls however I see fit? Can I walk in with a sledge hammer and begin remodeling because I feel that his current layout isn't right? Of course not. If I buy something from your father, he only owes me what he has agreed to sell me.
My car still relies on a mechanic. Does he get the right to drive my car whenever he wants because he changed the oil one time? What about the tire guy who rotated the tires on it? What about the oil refinery worker who refined the crude oil into gasoline, how about the trucker who delivered the gasoline to the fuel station, or the fuel station attendant who rung me out when I bought $20 worth of fuel and a Coke the last time I was there. What about the tanker trailer manufacturer employees who built the tanker that carried the fuel, what about the tire manufacturer who built the tires for the tanker truck trailer? I just becomes ludicrous once we follow your logic to the extreme. Every person involved in this chain, was given something for their time and effort. They don't have any ownership of my car, nor any right to tell me how to drive that car unless those actions are affecting their rights.
Banning pornography would be a violation of their freedom of speech. Once you justify the violation of any right, then you justify the violation of any right. Which at that point they cease being rights and are mere privileges. If you however voluntarily gave up viewing pornography as part of a movement of awareness or something. Then by all means I support you, I simply oppose any sort of action where the people involved don't give consent.
Then why the hell have we been arguing about this section then?
Hypothetically, Europe descends into another global war. The sides effective break down into A's and B's. The American people support the A's because of similar views or we're just sympathetic to them while at the same time we disdain the B's because of their views or motives. So, the U.S would sell or send them food, medical supplies, even war machines if they requested them. We would even attempt to rally other countries to impose sanctions on the B's. The U.S would not have any time of military involvement until Congress made a constitutional declaration of war.
I believe war is never a good answer. It drains us of treasure and resources that would be better suited elsewhere.
I was quite upset with my father. I even stopped speaking to him for a while but, I eventually realized that I don't have a right to be angry at him. I asked for something, he declined, not out of spite but, because of other reasons that I won't mention. Now, my father and I are speaking again, he even paid for my doctors visit to get the physical I needed to join the Marine Corps.
If something lacks the voluntary element then it is imposed by force. The application of force is where I deem something "evil" or "wrong".
BigLundi wrote...
Oh you're damned right black people will attempt to shop there. They'l try to shop there out of civil disobedience. And when Wal Mart tries to enforce their policy, that's where the law can step in and say, "No. You don't get to do that."The "law" stepping in and saying "You can't do that" is an infringement on the rights of the business owner or owners. If you stop a business from preventing people from entering, then you can not make a legal distinction that separates your home from the same fate. Whether you like it or not, a business is the property of it's owner, the same as a house or car belongs to it's owner. Whatever decision affects one affects the other since they both rely on the same property rights.
As far as your "no firearms" business, do you think that all people who value their second amendment rights will do the exact same as you? Maybe some of them simply shrug and are OK with it. Not allowing firearms on business grounds is a reasonable position, and I don't see why there ought to be a law against businesses doing it. It's a position that not only protects the business, but other patrons OF the business, potentially.
No group is ever totally committed to something. Anyways, we're on the same page here. I don't think the government should force the business owner to allow me onto his property if I have a firearm. I would like that the business allow me in WITH the firearm but, they have the right to exclude me. So I hold no hard feelings towards this establishment, I simply choose not to shop there until they reform their policy.
Right, so you owe your employer for everything you have.
I don't owe him anything and he doesn't owe me anything. We made a fair deal for my time and energy for his money. Quid pro quo
he certainly has the right to enter your establishment and do what he pleases within the confines of the law. Also where did your EMPLOYER get his money? From the people. Where did the people get their money? From more people, and it goes back and back and back, until we get to the source of all the US' money...the government...so that meas the government has the right to govern, in SOME ways, how you ought to run your business.
Doesn't work that way. The deal between me and my employer was to exchange my time for his money. Nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't get rights to the food in my pantry, the car in my driveway, the home I bought with the wages that he traded me. His customers don't get the right to enter his property simply because he sold them something. They made a fair deal for their money for his property and they went their separate ways.
Also, of course, because you do business in the government's property, that is, its country that it has jurisdiction over. And besides, it is customers that perpetuate your business in the first place. Even if I were to grant all the premises, that your business is yours exclusively, just like a home, then the people will have partial ownership as well given the fact that they're the ones keeping YOU afloat, and able to keep your doors open.
So the fireman that keeps your fathers business from burning down, can freely enter your home, sleep in your bed and eat whatever is in your fridge? Can he also piss all over the walls because it's his home too? If I gave your father a penny, I can walk into his business and start painting the walls however I see fit? Can I walk in with a sledge hammer and begin remodeling because I feel that his current layout isn't right? Of course not. If I buy something from your father, he only owes me what he has agreed to sell me.
Yes, it does become your car, however your car and your home, these things that belong to you exclusively, are dictated by documentation saying, "This belongs to person X" and, we all agree that one's home and car, and many other things that they own, is theirs and theirs alone to do with as they please. Because, and this is the big part, BECAUSE, we all agree that we desire to own and control our own property.
On a much smaller scale, like a car, or a house, it's a given that we have the right to control that as our own property. But on a larger scale, like a business that relies on the purchases of others to perpetuate them directly, this does not apply.
On a much smaller scale, like a car, or a house, it's a given that we have the right to control that as our own property. But on a larger scale, like a business that relies on the purchases of others to perpetuate them directly, this does not apply.
My car still relies on a mechanic. Does he get the right to drive my car whenever he wants because he changed the oil one time? What about the tire guy who rotated the tires on it? What about the oil refinery worker who refined the crude oil into gasoline, how about the trucker who delivered the gasoline to the fuel station, or the fuel station attendant who rung me out when I bought $20 worth of fuel and a Coke the last time I was there. What about the tanker trailer manufacturer employees who built the tanker that carried the fuel, what about the tire manufacturer who built the tires for the tanker truck trailer? I just becomes ludicrous once we follow your logic to the extreme. Every person involved in this chain, was given something for their time and effort. They don't have any ownership of my car, nor any right to tell me how to drive that car unless those actions are affecting their rights.
For instance. I have the right to view porn. However, if someone could, hypothetically, provide me s sufficient evidence to show that if porn is outlawed, then rape will go down significantly, I'm fully willing to submit that right to view porn for the greater good.
Banning pornography would be a violation of their freedom of speech. Once you justify the violation of any right, then you justify the violation of any right. Which at that point they cease being rights and are mere privileges. If you however voluntarily gave up viewing pornography as part of a movement of awareness or something. Then by all means I support you, I simply oppose any sort of action where the people involved don't give consent.
There are people, like you and me, that would lend our property to people who need it. There are people, like you and me, that donate to charities and support research into beneficial programs. Those are the people I deem to be 'good'.
Then why the hell have we been arguing about this section then?
I'm thinking you'd advocate invading then, now wouldn't you? Or would you rather drag out a war forever and say, "Nope. Stick to your home soil and only deal with them when they come over." Because I don't advocate that. I find that to be ineffective, insufficient, and would result in MORE deaths overall.
Hypothetically, Europe descends into another global war. The sides effective break down into A's and B's. The American people support the A's because of similar views or we're just sympathetic to them while at the same time we disdain the B's because of their views or motives. So, the U.S would sell or send them food, medical supplies, even war machines if they requested them. We would even attempt to rally other countries to impose sanctions on the B's. The U.S would not have any time of military involvement until Congress made a constitutional declaration of war.
I believe war is never a good answer. It drains us of treasure and resources that would be better suited elsewhere.
Ok, so you're saying that if your consisted of people saying, "No, fuck off." when you needed help, you'd say, "Good for you for exercising your freedom to tel me to do that."? Because to be honest, if that's the case...now I just pity you. to think that you wouldn't even get angry with people...being selfish dicks, and indeed advocate that they're perfectly fine in doing it.
I was quite upset with my father. I even stopped speaking to him for a while but, I eventually realized that I don't have a right to be angry at him. I asked for something, he declined, not out of spite but, because of other reasons that I won't mention. Now, my father and I are speaking again, he even paid for my doctors visit to get the physical I needed to join the Marine Corps.
You seem to think that infringing on someone's rights is, specifically and necessarily, a bad, and invasive thing. Are you not aware that all laws are made specifically to infringe on rights that people give themselves? Infringing rights is a necessary thing in society. It's the basis for law.
If something lacks the voluntary element then it is imposed by force. The application of force is where I deem something "evil" or "wrong".