Sharpshooter Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Sounds like the fault lies with the racist owners, businesses AND customers. But one's personal consumer choices is entirely one's own business. If you for whatever reason choose to buy groceries that were never handled by a black person, that is your prerogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Would that business be more likely to be able to operate under current Civil Rights Laws or under Ron Paul's private property rights envisionings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Obviously under Ron's system. Now, do you want to deny businesses and consumers these choices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Ok...thanks for concluding the obvious. Now, does Ron's system aid a racist person in being able to open up a racist business selling racist or hateful items, to racist customers? And to answer your question, yes. I want to deny racists from actively profiting from hatred and racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mircrowave Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 What a goon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Fresh Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 He has my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I would rather say Ron's system does nothing to aid in the setup of racist businesses, except to remove preexisting legislated barriers. It's still up to the racist businesspeople to raise the capital and gain the clientele themselves. I'd rather have a free society and market than bloated interventionist governments and their social engineering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 No again, I know how a business works, i run one. And again, you aren't using what little critical thinking skills you seem to have. Ron Paul inherently himself says that under his economic policies and ideology, that all those laws that ensure that a man, or woman, cannot be discriminated against on the basis of skin colour, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, would be superceded by the freedom's of business, and therefore property owners, according to his visions of less regulation and civil rights laws. That's the basis......regardless of whether or not you're too thick in the head to understand the ramifications of his policies. And let's see if we can use your simple minded equation to drive the point home further. If you have a racist person who has a business that caters to racist people, will that business, under Ron Paul flourish or fail?? Racist owners + Racist business + racist customers - anti-hate/racism/discrimination laws = good for business. Yes or No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 If one person removes an obstruction in the path of another person, would you say that the person who removed the obstruction aided the other person's journey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Sure, but the more important point is, should the obstruction have been there in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Whether it should have been there or not is inconsquential to the act of 'aid' provided. Would you now concede that 'aiding' is also then occuring as I asserted and you refuted previously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donky Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I've never understood how Liberalism became equated with anti-religion. It is a ridiculous notion and not compatible with what we see in other parts of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure Class Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 What a goon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryBoy Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.K. Chesterton Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Social conservative overkill (and I'm a social conservative). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 It's a far more important point, and deserves far more emphasis than the 'aiding' bit that you keep dwelling on ad nauseum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I'm dwelling on it because you keep skating around it in hopes I won't dwell on it. If you want your opinions and by extension yourself to be taken seriously, then either back your position or concede it when it's shown to be illogical, irrational or in this particular case....wrong. You've already agreed that it's aiding when held up in a general analogy, so I don't know why you won't just say that you were mistaken previously and that it is also 'aiding' in the other situation as well. Are you that stubborn that you can't admit when you're mistaken or wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstar Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Hey guess what, I've run three, comes with the territory of a business degree but I don't hide behind such nonsense, let the argument speak for itself, save your peen waving for another topic. Obviously you lack the understanding of freedom isn't one-sided, and freedom isn't, as mentioned above, your effort of social engineering which has nothing to do with business, nor is it good for a bottomline to allow a government to sit there and dictate so many terms of how it's conducted, no less based upon such nonsensical alarmist gobbledygook. Also you blatantly ignore every single response that repeatedly points out how businesses regularly search for people that aren't "like them" because these people help benefit their bottom line, there's no logical basis for a business being discriminatory like that. Obviously a racist person is going to be racist regardless of laws. When will you learn that your effort of social engineering is a fracking farce, it doesn't curb racism, it encourages business to overlook the best people in place of your favoured quota of ethnicity, when it's completely unnecessary today. If you really ran a business you would know, unless you're a racist and somehow need government holding your hand to pick people that best suit your bottomline. Obviously you're treating US society as if it's the very same as it was during the Jim Crow era, which is so flawed it's hard not to laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.