Privately owned businesses should have the right to discriminate.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why not? If I can restrict the freedoms of others then I can't do the things I want and thus will cease to be free. Me not being free is bad.

QED

well, I sat down one day and decided that my personal, abstract and philosophical rage at someone being disallowed to do something that there is no identifiable need to do in the first place isn't as strong at my almost instinctual outrage that there might be someone deprived of basic necessities or even the same luxuries I enjoy, based on something for which they have no control.

Originally posted by King Kandy
basic needs like health care would be impossible.

Which is why, at a minimum, insurance providers shouldn't be able to discriminate on certain basises. It doesn't have to be a rule with no exceptions.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is why, at a minimum, insurance providers shouldn't be able to discriminate on certain basises. It doesn't have to be a rule with no exceptions.

Originally posted by King Kandy
With the logical justifications i've seen so far, it can only be a rule without exceptions.

That's not actually true.

Bardock42, is that your picture dressed/posing as a female in your avatar?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you define harm? Cause I could imagine there are instances where a place having a discriminatory policy could potentially further business. Is not being allowed to have it "harming" the business owner in your book?

I guess it is possible that there are areas where catering to the majority against the minority would be profitable financially, even if the owner were not prejudice themselves, so there is "loss of profit" harm, maybe unfairly hampering their competitiveness in the marketplace.

however, even in the worst case scenario, business owners facing the above would be much better of than a visible minority in a region where such discriminatory policies would be successful.

we can talk about compromises, but ultimately it is a freedom business owners are either going to have or not, and if we have to have a government that is involved in as much as it is, then my choice is formless overall suffering in society.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's in some cases likely down to you discounting the feelings of racists, as fitting into the "benefit" category.

I mean I agree with you mostly, and it's not something I'd want to not be there at all costs, like you said "in an ideal world".

well, yes, I support anti-racism. one of the few things I see as a legitimate use of government would be destroying it. if that tramples some "rights" of racists to exclude people from things, I'm not shedding many tears.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bardock42, is that your picture dressed/posing as a female in your avatar?

You think I'm a guy?

thats how despots and tyranny occur and would make the anti government fanatics right.

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess it is possible that there are areas where catering to the majority against the minority would be profitable financially, even if the owner were not prejudice themselves, so there is "loss of profit" harm, maybe unfairly hampering their competitiveness in the marketplace.

however, even in the worst case scenario, business owners facing the above would be much better of than a visible minority in a region where such discriminatory policies would be successful.

we can talk about compromises, but ultimately it is a freedom business owners are either going to have or not, and if we have to have a government that is involved in as much as it is, then my choice is formless overall suffering in society.

That is probably true.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, I support anti-racism. one of the few things I see as a legitimate use of government would be destroying it. if that tramples some "rights" of racists to exclude people from things, I'm not shedding many tears.

I agree with that, I'm just saying it's not solely based on a cost benefit analysis, it also has an anti-bigot agenda attached to it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with that, I'm just saying it's not solely based on a cost benefit analysis, it also has an anti-bigot agenda attached to it.

ah, I misunderstood. ya, I'm certainly not pretending to be an unbiased observer.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is why, at a minimum, insurance providers shouldn't be able to discriminate on certain basises. It doesn't have to be a rule with no exceptions.

Originally posted by inimalist
I have never understood definitions of freedom so insistant on ones rights to revoke freedoms from others

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Or we could just get a form of public health insurance and tell the privatized industry to shape up or ship out.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That would be controlling private businesses which you're against.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
First off, I'm not against some amount of business regulation.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Secondly, offering public health insurance is not controlling private businesses.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Third of all, I think that privatized insurance is largely unethical.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh really? You think you could explain just what that means, because everything you've said has amounted to "Private businesses should never be interfered with, until it suits my argument to say they can be."

You said they'd have to "shape up or ship out". That sounds like control to me.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
First off, I'm not against some amount of business regulation. Secondly, offering public health insurance is not controlling private businesses. Third of all, I think that privatized insurance is largely unethical. Fourthly, you mad, bro?

I'm not a libertarian.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
First off, I'm not against some amount of business regulation. Secondly, offering public health insurance is not controlling private businesses. Third of all, I think that privatized insurance is largely unethical. Fourthly, you mad, bro?

I was taking you very seriously until the forth point...and then I lol'd pretty hard.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You said they'd have to "shape up or ship out". That sounds like control to me.

OR....capitalism. 313

Yes, yes, I know, I know: he was talking about the government competing which would be a mutant form of capitalism. Bla bla bla. But "Shape up or ship out" is very capitalistic.

There could also be a public insurance without government.