The Discussion in Need of a Title

~~The Unfan~~ · 08-24-2008, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgd85

I meant to say the Declaration Of Independence but my bad, I was bantering high. However the following is from the Constitution of the United States and DOES imply that all men were created equally by giving blacks the right to vote.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

I already agreed that the government has to treat everyone equally. However, that doesn't the people should have to.

Quote:

Because business is government regulated, even private business.

Eleven Year-Old’s Organic Veggie Stand Shut Down by California Mayor » GroovyGreen.com - Start Today :: Save Tomorrow

Now if you have a illegal private business, as in not government regulated, thats a different story. But you cannot own and operate a business without a license, even a private one. Another perfect example would be how city governments make it illegal to smoke in bars.

Right, and this is what I referring to that I disagree with. It shouldn't be regulated in the way that it is. As long as the business itself isn't harming a non-consenting party the government shouldn't try to shut it down. By refusing service (based on any grounds) they're not actually causing damage, they're just refusing to help.

Also, my analogy of home still applies. It should be up to the owner of the business/building (if rented) to say if you can or can't smoke there. Not the government. The government shouldn't control what you can and can't permit on your property outside of illegal conduct. I'm also a firm believer that smoking should be legal.

As far as regulation, I totally agree with regulating businesses. The government should prevent all companies from doing unwanted harm to people and should monitor money for tax purposes. However, I do think businesses are currently over regulated. Besides, being regulated by and being ran by are two different things. If your tax payer dollars paid for Joe's Sloppy Pizzaria to exist than I would agree that Joe has to treat everyone the same. However, since your tax payer dollars don't pay for Joe's Sloppy Pizzaria than Joe should have the right to tell you to get off of his property for being a ****.

Son of JayJamJah · 08-24-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan

I the government has to treat everyone equally. However, that doesn't the people should have to.

As long as the business itself isn't harming a non-consenting party the government shouldn't try to shut it down.

It should be up to the owner of the business/building (if rented) to say if you can or can't smoke there. Not the government.

.

These are three things I firmly believe to be true and important.

If an establishment chooses not to serve someone or a group of someones for arbitrary\ignorant reasons their business my suffer via word of mouth. By the same token if a business is forced to ban smoking, their business may suffer. The same result yes, but the difference is in the first instance they brought the consequence on themselves. A world where the personal freedom meets accountability is a damn fine place.

joyboyo53 · 08-24-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan

I already agreed that the government has to treat everyone equally. However, that doesn't the people should have to.

Right, and this is what I referring to that I disagree with. It shouldn't be regulated in the way that it is. As long as the business itself isn't harming a non-consenting party the government shouldn't try to shut it down. By refusing service (based on any grounds) they're not actually causing damage, they're just refusing to help.

Also, my analogy of home still applies. It should be up to the owner of the business/building (if rented) to say if you can or can't smoke there. Not the government. The government shouldn't control what you can and can't permit on your property outside of illegal conduct. I'm also a firm believer that smoking should be legal.

As far as regulation, I totally agree with regulating businesses. The government should prevent all companies from doing unwanted harm to people and should monitor money for tax purposes. However, I do think businesses are currently over regulated. Besides, being regulated by and being ran by are two different things. If your tax payer dollars paid for Joe's Sloppy Pizzaria to exist than I would agree that Joe has to treat everyone the same. However, since your tax payer dollars don't pay for Joe's Sloppy Pizzaria than Joe should have the right to tell you to get off of his property for being a ****.

are you a democrat or a republican?

Son of JayJamJah · 08-24-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgd85

are you a democrat or a republican?

Sounds Libertarian to me.

~~The Unfan~~ · 08-24-2008, 05:34 PM

Independent actually. Socially I'm a libertarian, but I highly disagree with their theory of having a tiny government and abolishing the IRS and all that nonsense. The one problem the libertarian party has is that they're fiscally retarded.

Son of JayJamJah · 08-24-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan

Independent actually. Socially I'm a libertarian, but I highly disagree with their theory of having a tiny government and abolishing the IRS and all that nonsense. The one problem the libertarian party has is that they're fiscally retarded.

I don't know if you can assume that. They are fiscally unproven and unprecedented but several finical experts support the abolition of the IRS and there is endless data to suggest independent citizen run enterprise is substantially more efficient and economical then it's government subsidized counterparts.

I would say that a complete overhaul of our economy in idealistic Libertarian fashion would likely overwhelm and destroy our economy but I am not oppose to gradual long term implementation on at least a trial basis based on the fact that I believe the same assumption that drives their social policy will be effective as far as economic policy. That of course being. "Give the individual as much freedom as possible without harming or infringing on the liberties and rights of another."

08-24-2008, 05:34 PM	#15 (permalink)
~~The Unfan~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Methville Posts: 2,116	Independent actually. Socially I'm a libertarian, but I highly disagree with their theory of having a tiny government and abolishing the IRS and all that nonsense. The one problem the libertarian party has is that they're fiscally retarded.