• Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act Of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy
    154 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34023828]I've never seen a list of rights for businesses. In fact, there is a large movement trying to make sure businesses don't get rights. You know, like getting Corporate person-hood removed. Businesses should be able to do whatever they want within the confines of the law the and the rights of others, not the other way around. Being a business should not give you free reign to do whatever the hell you want. I'd like to criticize certain individuals, regardless of if they are supposedly playing devil's advocate or whatever, for quite frankly being hypocrites. Some of you have clung to the Occupy movement and supposedly hold their views, yet you come in here and go off about how businesses should basically be able to do whatever the hell they like for no reason other than being businesses. And quite frankly, its sickening to see.[/QUOTE] i said earlier that I am only talking about privately owned businesses. I'm not sure what I think about corporations refusing service. Sorry about the confusion. [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;34023794]I think you missed my point on that. If someone is claiming to want a 'hands off' freedom from the government(ie don't limit my rights), how does that same person turn around and benefit by accepting a place in the same society that is protected/supplied/run by that same government? It's hypocritical at best, wanting all the benefits of being in the US without being beholden to the laws that make that life possible. So no, I'm not saying anyone is 'entitled' to anything belonging to someone else. I'm saying the homeowner has to pay his or her property taxes because he or she benefits from those services(if those services are paid by taxes). It's why anti-war people can't say "I want my tax dollars to go towards paying for anything except nuclear weapons". It's why childless people can't say "I don't think I should have to pay taxes that are spent on public schools, since I have no kids to send to school." You get to pick and choose your representation in government, you don't get to pick and choose what aspects of the government you want and don't want to take part in, in terms of law. If there is something you don't want(ie illegal immigrants), you influence things by empowering representatives to address that.[/QUOTE] the government does not supply/run individual stores. Therefore, this whole choosing where your tax money goes makes no sense in this argument. At all.
[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;34021396]What I've been saying in a roundabout way is racial/religious/any arbitrary stupid form of discrimination should not be allowed in any businesses, at all, private or not. I've made logical points, you've ignored them by just saying "owners rights to do whatever."[/QUOTE] If you own a private business, you own it. No one else has a right to say what you can and cannot do until you infringe on others rights or break other rules. Not opening your doors for potential customers you don't want is your choice and no one can or should be able to force you to open your doors for them.
I want him to be the repub nominee so he can force obama to answer about the economy and drug war. He is better than all the other repub nutjobs anyway
[QUOTE=Mattk50;34025488]I want him to be the repub nominee so he can force obama to answer about the economy and drug war. He is better than all the other repub nutjobs anyway[/QUOTE] Mitt Romney?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34025561]Mitt Romney?[/QUOTE] Which Mitt Romney?
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34025785]Which Mitt Romney?[/QUOTE] not sure. But I'm just saying he's not a nutjob.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;34021608]really cool names[/QUOTE] hmm. no. not particularly.
The liberal one or the conservative one? [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] Auto merge broken, but hopefully you get the joke now
[QUOTE=billyjohn86;34010162]Better then Obama.. So Obama, what about closing Gitmo and believing in the people?[/QUOTE] believing in the people? This is what I hate about some republicans and right-wingers. They act as if obama doesn't care about the country, or doesn't think america is "exceptional" or what have you. I have serious problems with obama but I don't question his belief in "america" or what have you. He's your president, he was elected fairly, and the office deserves a little more respect than that.
[QUOTE=fox '09;34026099]believing in the people? This is what I hate about some republicans and right-wingers. They act as if obama doesn't care about the country, or doesn't think america is "exceptional" or what have you. I have serious problems with obama but I don't question his belief in "america" or what have you. He's your president, he was elected fairly, and the office deserves a little more respect than that.[/QUOTE] I personally hate this whole american exceptionalism thing. Yeah I think America is great, but people use exceptionalism to make breaking international laws okay. "We can invade Iraq, because it is our duty.", etc, etc.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34026175]I personally hate this whole american exceptionalism thing. Yeah I think America is great, but people use exceptionalism to make breaking international laws okay. "We can invade Iraq, because it is our duty.", etc, etc.[/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong, I agree, but they still use it against him. It should mean that we set a good standard, not that we destroy countries and then build them back for 8 years for our eventual withdrawal.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34022551]After I saw your ban history, I said "Yeah, I'm not even going to listen to him anymore" because why even argue with you you aren't going to realize how utterly retarded your examples are, there's no reasoning with you at all.[/QUOTE] Hahaha, wow. Every singe ban was for either flaming or trolling. How is he even still here? :v:
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;34026669]Hahaha, wow. Every singe ban was for either flaming or trolling. How is he even still here? :v:[/QUOTE] it probably has something to do with the fact that for three months ive done nothing wrong idk though maybe i'm just hardcore trolling you
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34027109]it probably has something to do with the fact that for three months ive done nothing wrong idk though maybe i'm just hardcore trolling you[/QUOTE] Even if you were, I'd still argue, I don't care. I just argue for the sake of arguing on Face punch. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] It shows the others points, regardless of if they're trolling or not, lets me sharpen my own opinions.
is that why you're making fun of my ban history and totally ditching the argument?
If you allow shop/restaurant owners to discriminate against blacks you have to allow landlords to discriminate against blacks, so they have nowhere to live. And you have to allow business owners to discriminate against hiring blacks, so they can't get jobs either.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;34009143]And yet he was in that pic with the KKK Grand Wizard and the Neo Nazi party leader.[/QUOTE] They call their leader the "grand wizard"? What a bunch of fucking nerds.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;34027421]If you allow shop/restaurant owners to discriminate against blacks you have to allow landlords to discriminate against blacks, so they have nowhere to live. And you have to allow business owners to discriminate against hiring blacks, so they can't get jobs either.[/QUOTE] Do you seriously think every one in america is a racist? most people aren't. [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] Also, i would like to correct an earlier statement. I did not mean all privately owned companies. I mean sole propierships, because in those the owner and business are one and the same. All other businesses should be non-discriminatory.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;34023978]If you own a private business, you own it. No one else has a right to say what you can and cannot do until you infringe on others rights or break other rules. Not opening your doors for potential customers you don't want is your choice and no one can or should be able to force you to open your doors for them.[/QUOTE] In a hypothetical hands-off situation, allowing an absolute right to deny service and hiring based on any factors would leave the possibility for several people to be deprived of their home, food, and other basic needs. The fact that people can and did use economic freedoms to cause demonstrable harm to minority groups in the past is why we have laws against such nonsense- because, as you said, one's rights to do whatever end at the point where they harm someone else. One can say "well I'm not harming anyone else because I'm a singular business and they can go somewhere else", but then they're ignoring history, basic logic and the fact that an economy is a [I]system[/I] with an ever-evolving and [I]uneven distribution[/I] of goods and services and populations and resources, not a homogenous network people can use to just "go somewhere else" at any given time at little to no cost. In a naive idealized world, we could have these absolute denial rights, in a reality where we cannot magically redistribute society to prevent the monumental harm such crap would cause, we have anti-discrimination laws.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34028801]In a hypothetical hands-off situation, allowing an absolute right to deny service and hiring based on any factors would leave the possibility for several people to be deprived of their home, food, and other basic needs. The fact that people can and did use economic freedoms to cause demonstrable harm to minority groups in the past is why we have laws against such nonsense- because, as you said, one's rights to do whatever end at the point where they harm someone else. One can say "well I'm not harming anyone else because I'm a singular business and they can go somewhere else", but then they're ignoring history, basic logic and the fact that an economy is a [I]system[/I] with an ever-evolving and [I]uneven distribution[/I] of goods and services and populations and resources, not a homogenous network people can use to just "go somewhere else" at any given time at little to no cost. In a naive idealized world, we could have these absolute denial rights, in a reality where we cannot magically redistribute society to prevent the monumental harm such crap would cause, we have anti-discrimination laws.[/QUOTE] Great post
[QUOTE=Contag;34028892]Great post[/QUOTE]One which will doubtlessly be ignored for "Ron Paul R3volution!"
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34021004] somewhat valid point, but by that logic everyone is entitled to access to everyone's homes considering they are led to by public roads and protected by public officials[/QUOTE] If you register your home as public access, then yes, everyone is entitled to access it. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;34021413]??? "people shouldnt be allowed to exercise control of their private property because i think its wrong@!!!"[/QUOTE] Unless you do not support the use of federal law to regulate products or services provided by public access private businesses, you can not say right of service is wrong. As regulations like food safety and inspection could be construed as "breeches in private property rights".
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34028801]In a hypothetical hands-off situation, allowing an absolute right to deny service and hiring based on any factors would leave the possibility for several people to be deprived of their home, food, and other basic needs. The fact that people can and did use economic freedoms to cause demonstrable harm to minority groups in the past is why we have laws against such nonsense- because, as you said, one's rights to do whatever end at the point where they harm someone else. One can say "well I'm not harming anyone else because I'm a singular business and they can go somewhere else", but then they're ignoring history, basic logic and the fact that an economy is a [I]system[/I] with an ever-evolving and [I]uneven distribution[/I] of goods and services and populations and resources, not a homogenous network people can use to just "go somewhere else" at any given time at little to no cost. In a naive idealized world, we could have these absolute denial rights, in a reality where we cannot magically redistribute society to prevent the monumental harm such crap would cause, we have anti-discrimination laws.[/QUOTE] are you quite possibly forgetting the fact that attitudes have changed since 1964? people have the right to organize, boycott, protest, etc... you know?
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34033196]are you quite possibly forgetting the fact that attitudes have changed since 1964? people have the right to organize, boycott, protest, etc... you know?[/QUOTE] Yeah, and? and remember, the KKK still exists and racism is still extremely common. We always had those rights, too. Don't even forget those, I mean really. You'd allow a town full of clansmen to deny someone anything by paying stores to kick them out.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34033304]are you seriously saying they didn't back then?[/quote] not at all, what gave you that impression? [quote]and remember, the KKK still exists and racism is still extremely common.[/QUOTE] the KKK is an absolute joke today. to suggest that they have any significant influence anymore is laughable at best. same thing with neo-nazi groups (at least in the US, i cant say the same for countries like Russia). there's no denying that racism in the US is becoming more and more frowned upon. what more relevant examples are there than the mainstream media's campaign to endlessly barrage Ron Paul with his newsletter scandal? same thing here: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/jules-manson-obama_n_1161044.html[/url] racist asshole opens his mouth and now he is a social pariah. [quote]You'd allow a town full of clansmen to deny someone anything by paying stores to kick them out.[/QUOTE] that's some lovely speculation but i'd like to see it happen (in this day and age) first before i can believe you.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34033378]not at all, what gave you that impression? the KKK is an absolute joke today. to suggest that they have any significant influence anymore is laughable at best. same thing with neo-nazi groups (at least in the US, i cant say the same for countries like Russia). there's no denying that racism in the US is becoming more and more frowned upon. what more relevant examples are there than the mainstream media's campaign to endlessly barrage Ron Paul with his newsletter scandal? same thing here: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/jules-manson-obama_n_1161044.html[/url] racist asshole opens his mouth and now he is a social pariah. that's some lovely speculation but i'd like to see it happen (in this day and age) first before i can believe you.[/QUOTE] Fair enough then, but I think racism is a bit way too common to quite let it happen. I think 10 or 15 years would be good to see racism be extremely shunned. Even then, what's the point of letting owners shut down anyone for nothing?
[QUOTE=J!NX;34033551]Even then, what's the point of letting owners shut down anyone for nothing?[/QUOTE] it's been explained in this thread countless times. they would be allowed to do so on the basis of private ownership. if i disagree with a business that does that then i can tell all my friends and family not to do business with him, and spread the word on top of that. of course, activism isn't just limited to word of mouth; that was purely an example. even hitler has changed his ways! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rurBHWxYaR0[/media] (i know it's old but why not)
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34028801]In a hypothetical hands-off situation, allowing an absolute right to deny service and hiring based on any factors would leave the possibility for several people to be deprived of their home, food, and other basic needs. The fact that people can and did use economic freedoms to cause demonstrable harm to minority groups in the past is why we have laws against such nonsense- because, as you said, one's rights to do whatever end at the point where they harm someone else. One can say "well I'm not harming anyone else because I'm a singular business and they can go somewhere else", but then they're ignoring history, basic logic and the fact that an economy is a [I]system[/I] with an ever-evolving and [I]uneven distribution[/I] of goods and services and populations and resources, not a homogenous network people can use to just "go somewhere else" at any given time at little to no cost. In a naive idealized world, we could have these absolute denial rights, in a reality where we cannot magically redistribute society to prevent the monumental harm such crap would cause, we have anti-discrimination laws.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34030500]If you register your home as public access, then yes, everyone is entitled to access it. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] Unless you do not support the use of federal law to regulate products or services provided by public access private businesses, you can not say right of service is wrong. As regulations like food safety and inspection could be construed as "breeches in private property rights".[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/winner.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Zeke128;34009216][img]http://meta.filesmelt.com/downloader.php?file=ronpaul.png[/img][/QUOTE] The person on the right looks like a 14 year old girl.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.