Racism

[Eor]

Wait... a clergy member can be sued for not marrying two gay people?

I'm 99% that whoever said that was mistaken, because that's silly.

edit: My bad. Actually, I'm pretty sure you can be sued for anything. I could try to sue you for not giving me money. I'd, however, have to prove why I'm right and that you need to pay me damages. So yes, they could be sued for not marrying two gay people, and probably sued for not marrying Hindus. You could sue me for not getting a sex change operation, or for getting one, or for anything you'd really want to, but unless you can prove that I damaged you then it wouldn't matter.

an infringement on our freedom of speech!

Religion, not speech

I completely agree with Jam. Technically, he is right. A business owner should have the right to not serve his products (which were made by him with his money)[ to someone for whatever reason.

Made my him with his money, no one is forcing him to do anything. He's welcomed to keep them. But if he wants to enter the economy like that, then it's logical that those run the economy can make laws about it. Honestly I think that something as basic as "don't discriminate for these reasons" is perfectly inline with what the Government can and can't do. I admit, I don't really know **** about the laws here, I'm just speaking morally. Morally I have no problem with the government stating something as basic as "businesses can't discriminate based on race". I see no negative effect from that.

 

[pockyD]

********, if people were allowed to pick and choose who they wanted to take into their stores or schools, then there would be full blown riots everywhere.

Say, for example, I went with all my friends to Starbucks or something one afternoon, but only I (seeing as I live in a predominately white community, all my friends are white) wasn't allowed in, then how'd you think I'd feel? We could go somewhere else, but what if almost everywhere doesn't allow me in? I'd have to walk home, seeing as though the bus company might not let me on their buses, and sit at home alone whilst all my friends enjoy a nice day out.

If this was happening on a mass scale to a load of people, then their would just be chaos. If a shop didn't allow me in because I was kinda black, I'd go by later that night with a hoodie and a few bricks and smash every window. When they replaced the windows, I'd come back with a few more bricks and do it again.

Basically my point is, more good comes from forcing racists to do things, than letting them choose what they want to do, or who they want to serve. I'm a person, not some half-human who doesn't deserve things just because of my skin colour.

maybe they wouldn't want to serve you because you're the type of self-righteous person who would go back there and repeatedly vandalize them, and then be proud of it

maybe forcing racists to be tolerant yields a lot of small-scale benefits, but the overall hit to our widely accepted freedoms is more damaging, in my opinion

there would only be "chaos" because people feel they are entitled to something that they are, in fact, not (by the way, if the bus is city-run, then they would not have any right to refuse you service even under these standards)

It's easy for you and 99% of people to lash out against racists or whatever less-liked social group because your freedoms would be in no way impeded if their beliefs were "banned", but stop being selfish for a little bit and realize that they have rights too, regardless of whether their beliefs are right or wrong

 

[illinialex24]

Guys, I know this may appear to be completely random but I think it has to do well with the whole racism or other issue thing: What is the right of a person to carry out the job as he pleases when the job description expects him to act a certain way? Obviously, Hindu people deserve the right to get married.

More controversial but just as obvious to me is that gay people deserve the right to get married. We are not a religious state and so religious dilemmas are not valid when it comes to refusing people rights. Do we still hold slaves because the Bible repeatedly mentions it is okay to do so?

And for anyone who wants quotes on that, here is a quote with link so you may see for yourself their view on slaves:

44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

So, we can clearly see that slavery is not tolerated in these days but it was promoted to a certain extent in Biblical times. However, because public opinion is so against slavery, we do not have the uproar that we are breaking biblical law by having slaves. However, from the same exact book (Leviticus), we have our rules based on homosexuality.

And yet, here are two quotes from Leviticus about Homosexuality, where most of our rules about such are created, once again, both linked to a Bible's website:

22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Now, if we go back to my original point, I have a Daily Show clip that although hilarious really shows what a person in a certain profession must be willing to do to be in that profession, this time working with a pharmacist who opposes the morning after pill:

Pill Of Rights

Your own personal beliefs should not affect the job you are doing, so the priest who refuses to marry a gay couple if it legal to do so should be legally accountable for it.

 

[pockyD]

that doesn't make any sense

it's "legal" for me to ride a unicycle, but i shouldn't be "accountable" if i choose not to

the government provides its own services for marriage if you can't find a religious official willing to do it for you, so aside from the fact that there's no reason a pair of Hindus would want to get married in a Christian church by a Christian minister to begin with, there are other ways to get it done

 

[Pluvia's other account]

maybe they wouldn't want to serve you because you're the type of self-righteous person who would go back there and repeatedly vandalize them, and then be proud of it

maybe forcing racists to be tolerant yields a lot of small-scale benefits, but the overall hit to our widely accepted freedoms is more damaging, in my opinion

there would only be "chaos" because people feel they are entitled to something that they are, in fact, not (by the way, if the bus is city-run, then they would not have any right to refuse you service even under these standards)

It's easy for you and 99% of people to lash out against racists or whatever less-liked social group because your freedoms would be in no way impeded if their beliefs were "banned", but stop being selfish for a little bit and realize that they have rights too, regardless of whether their beliefs are right or wrong

I 'm not self-righteous in the slightest. I was pointing out what would happen if this was the norm. What do you think gangs would do to their businesses and homes?

Of course they have rights, but do you really think the people who aren't getting served are going are going to care about that?

This isn't an idealistic world, letting people choose who they wanted to serve wouldn't work, it would collapse and/or cause a huge amount of negative actions.

 

[pockyD]

I 'm not self-righteous in the slightest. I was pointing out what would happen if this was the norm. What do you think gangs would do to their businesses and homes?

that was a large part of the point; if a business elects to restrict their customer base, they should fully expect to deal with the consequences. Most commonly and directly, this is purely lost of sales, but retaliation from disgruntled people isn't unheard of. Why would the government need to intervene though?

if some idiot goes on a killing spree because some girl wouldn't go to the prom with him, was the girl in the wrong? should the government have forced her to do it?

no; people responding with violence is their own thing

Of course they have rights, but do you really think the people who aren't getting served are going are going to care about that?

of course not; everybody's looking out for themselves

but is a black person being angry about not being served by a private business really strictly more important than a racist being angry about being forced to serve a black person and not run the business however he/she feels fit?? I don't see why that's true, aside from ridiculous social conventions and norms

This isn't an idealistic world, letting people choose who they wanted to serve wouldn't work, it would collapse and/or cause a huge amount of negative actions.

yes, but that's the fault of the people being discriminated against; not that of the discriminators. you are asking to punish people simply because they believe in an unpopular view... does that sound like any other historical governing system?

 

[illinialex24]

that doesn't make any sense

it's "legal" for me to ride a unicycle, but i shouldn't be "accountable" if i choose not to

the government provides its own services for marriage if you can't find a religious official willing to do it for you, so aside from the fact that there's no reason a pair of Hindus would want to get married in a Christian church by a Christian minister to begin with, there are other ways to get it done

But your job is not to ride a unicycle. If it was, and you chose not to ride in front of lets say pregnant women, you would be held accountable and likely fired. The same is true for pharmacist. But yeah, I guess the church example was slightly off because they have a different description, so they should likely get marriages from the state.

 

[RDK]

Now, if we go back to my original point, I have a Daily Show clip that although hilarious really shows what a person in a certain profession must be willing to do to be in that profession, this time working with a pharmacist who opposes the morning after pill:

Pill Of Rights

Your own personal beliefs should not affect the job you are doing, so the priest who refuses to marry a gay couple if it legal to do so should be legally accountable for it.

My first question would be is that guy allowed to do that? I don't think a regular old behind-the-counter pharmacist gets to make managerial decisions like whether or not the pharmacy is going to sign prescriptions for the morning-after pill.

When it comes down to your job, you either do what your boss tells you, get your union to change whatever you don't like, or simply lose your job. This refusing to fill out a prescription due to a religious belief is ridiculous, and if I were the manager of the pharmacy and I found out I was losing business prospects because of some pro-life nut behind the counter refusing to give people their pills, I'd fire him on the spot.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

that was a large part of the point; if a business elects to restrict their customer base, they should fully expect to deal with the consequences. Most commonly and directly, this is purely lost of sales, but retaliation from disgruntled people isn't unheard of. Why would the government need to intervene though?

if some idiot goes on a killing spree because some girl wouldn't go to the prom with him, was the girl in the wrong? should the government have forced her to do it?

no; people responding with violence is their own thing

Of course people responding with violence is their own choice. The government steps in like it does everywhere else where there's a high probability of people responding with violence on a mass scale.

of course not; everybody's looking out for themselves

but is a black person being angry about not being served by a private business really strictly more important than a racist being angry about being forced to serve a black person and not run the business however he/she feels fit?? I don't see why that's true, aside from ridiculous social conventions and norms

See my other two points, they basically answer this question.

yes, but that's the fault of the people being discriminated against; not that of the discriminators. you are asking to punish people simply because they believe in an unpopular view... does that sound like any other historical governing system?

How is it the fault of the people being discriminated against? Every action has a reaction. And loads of laws are put in place to punish people because they believe in an unpopular view. Downloading music for free etc.

 

[illinialex24]

My first question would be is that guy allowed to do that? I don't think a regular old behind-the-counter pharmacist gets to make managerial decisions like whether or not the pharmacy is going to sign prescriptions for the morning-after pill.

When it comes down to your job, you either do what your boss tells you, get your union to change whatever you don't like, or simply lose your job. This refusing to fill out a prescription due to a religious belief is ridiculous, and if I were the manager of the pharmacy and I found out I was losing business prospects because of some pro-life nut behind the counter refusing to give people their pills, I'd fire him on the spot.

Exactly, he isn't allowed to do that which is why arguing faith based incompetence isn't a very good argument in any situation whether you are unable to prescribe pills or unable to allow gay marriage to take place in a state area (I forgot churches are private so its technically allowed if the church opposes gay marriage).

 

[pockyD]

But your job is not to ride a unicycle. If it was, and you chose not to ride in front of lets say pregnant women, you would be held accountable and likely fired. The same is true for pharmacist. But yeah, I guess the church example was slightly off because they have a different description, so they should likely get marriages from the state.

The owner of a business gets to decide what his job is, whether it's micromanaging everything, or just hiring employees and watching things go. If he decides that his job is "serving white people who make 6 figures a year", then that's what it is.

And yes, the job of a church minister is far from "marrying whoever asks to be married".

Of course people responding with violence is their own choice. The government steps in like it does everywhere else where there's a high probability of people responding with violence on a mass scale.

They step in to PROTECT the potential victim of violence, not to punish them

See my other two points, they basically answer this question.

i don't see it but ok

How is it the fault of the people being discriminated against? Every action has a reaction. And loads of laws are put in place to punish people because they believe in an unpopular view. Downloading music for free etc.

It's the fault of whoever chooses to bring violence into the equation; it's that simple. If you call someone 'dumb' and they punch you out, who do you think goes to jail?

I don't actually understand the music-downloading analogy; which view is unpopular? If you want to debate whether copyright laws themselves should be upheld, there's a separate thread for that... but under the assumption that copyright laws ARE intact, then it doesn't matter which perspective is popular, because one view is against the law while the other one is not

My first question would be is that guy allowed to do that? I don't think a regular old behind-the-counter pharmacist gets to make managerial decisions like whether or not the pharmacy is going to sign prescriptions for the morning-after pill.

When it comes down to your job, you either do what your boss tells you, get your union to change whatever you don't like, or simply lose your job. This refusing to fill out a prescription due to a religious belief is ridiculous, and if I were the manager of the pharmacy and I found out I was losing business prospects because of some pro-life nut behind the counter refusing to give people their pills, I'd fire him on the spot.

I agree; if your store policy is to sell birth control or whatever (something that is allowable by law) and you choose not to do it, the store can hold you accountable and fire you...

Are they discriminating against people who are against birth control by not hiring people like that to work in their pharmacy? No; such people are simply not as well-suited to do the job that is required of them because of their moral objections. Why is race necessarily any different?

 

[Pluvia's other account]

They step in to PROTECT the potential victim of violence, not to punish them

So their choices are:

1. Protect the racist, which would cause a lot of negative actions to come of it.

Or

2. Tell the racist that they have to serve everyone. The racist might not like it, but it's a much less complicated way of dealing with the problem, and as we can see, it works.

It's the fault of whoever chooses to bring violence into the equation; it's that simple. If you call someone 'dumb' and they punch you out, who do you think goes to jail?

This analogy doesn't work for this situation. For one thing, it's not on a mass scale, and second of all it's about free speech, rather than restricting someones rights.

I don't actually understand the music-downloading analogy; which view is unpopular? If you want to debate whether copyright laws themselves should be upheld, there's a separate thread for that... but under the assumption that copyright laws ARE intact, then it doesn't matter which perspective is popular, because one view is against the law while the other one is not

Well then it doesn't matter which view is unpopular here, because one is against the law whilst the other one isn't.

 

[pockyD]

So their choices are:

1. Protect the racist, which would cause a lot of negative actions to come of it.

Or

2. Tell the racist that they have to serve everyone. The racist might not like it, but it's a much less complicated way of dealing with the problem, and as we can see, it works.

so the easy way is the best way?

I agree; the "easy" way out is to give the government absolute authority. I do think that at some point in time, we fought a war to try to break that system down though.

This analogy doesn't work for this situation. For one thing, it's not on a mass scale, and second of all it's about free speech, rather than restricting someones rights.

You're the one asking to restrict someone's rights. I'm fighting to uphold the rights

...and why would scale matter? what if I got on a microphone and told a stadium full of people "you're dumb" and then got beat up at all of them? who's at fault then?

...not to mention, a small-scale situation is extremely relevant to the argument at hand of denying someone service

Well then it doesn't matter which view is unpopular here, because one is against the law whilst the other one isn't.

right, which is why I didn't understand why you brought that analogy up at all

 

[Pluvia's other account]

so the easy way is the best way?

In this situation it is, we know it works. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

I agree; the "easy" way out is to give the government absolute authority. I do think that at some point in time, we fought a war to try to break that system down though.

I don't get this bit.

You're the one asking to restrict someone's rights. I'm fighting to uphold the rights

Actually, you're fighting to uphold one persons right to restrict a lot of other peoples rights.

...and why would scale matter? what if I got on a microphone and told a stadium full of people "you're dumb" and then got beat up at all of them? who's at fault then?

...not to mention, a small-scale situation is extremely relevant to the argument at hand of denying someone service

This analogy doesn't work at all for this situation. What you should've said is what if you got on a microphone and told a stadium full of people that they had to leave if they're female, because you don't want them in the stadium.

 

[pockyD]

In this situation it is, we know it works. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

so if the status quo was for allowing discrimination (it might already be), you'd be fine with that too?

if not, then this is an irrelevant point

if yes, then it doesn't contribute to the argument as you'd be on board with whatever the government is already saying, independent of the reasoning

I don't get this bit.

we were once ruled by a king...

Actually, you're fighting to uphold one persons right to restrict a lot of other peoples rights.

my argument is that the other people's "rights" are not, in fact, rights. Nobody has a RIGHT to enter a store and demand service. You need to stop feeling like you're "entitled" to everything that any other person could be offering

the only real "right" in play is the right to run your business as you please

This analogy doesn't work at all for this situation. What you should've said is what if you got on a microphone and told a stadium full of people that they had to leave if they're female, because you don't want them in the stadium.

fine; so if they then beat you up, who's legally at fault (assuming the authorities were actually capable of identifying everyone taking part in the beating)?

 

[Eor]

But nobody has the right to run their buisness as they please

 

[pockyD]

maybe not in that gross oversimplification, and maybe not even in the current state

but isn't that the point of the debate? I don't see how you can say "that's not an existing right" and shut down an argument about whether it SHOULD be a right

 

[Eor]

but isn't that the point of the debate? I don't see how you can say "that's not an existing right" and shut down an argument about whether it SHOULD be a right

That was exactly my point when posting that, it was in response to your "that's not a right" statement.

 

[pockyD]

so my somewhat unsupported (thus far) assertion is that 'demanding that you get served' at whatever venue you want is not (and should not be) a right; is that what you're challenging?

 

[Eor]

"Nobody has a RIGHT to enter a store and demand service"

Your argument was based on that, but you hadn't supported why, so yeah, that's what I was posting against, since you then said another right, but didn't give reasons for one being a right but the other one not being a right.

People don't have the right to go into a store and demand service. People are allowed to discriminate, that's why there are "no shirts no shoes no service" signs. It's certain ways that people discriminate that's illegal, such as skin color.

Also: I'm not sure, but I have a feeling that I remember you posting being angry at how you can't go into certain areas of your town because everyone there only speaks spanish. Do you not see a contradiction? (if that wasn't you, then yeah I'm dumb and my bad).

I don't think Pluvia is being realistic. Discriminating wouldn't lead to full blown riots. I also think Jam is being, honestly, dumb. Talking about how they gave "the white man money" is ridiculous, civil rights movement was what allowed that not to be true. If it wasn't for the anti-discrimination legislation, such as making it illegal to not hire someone because they're black/not serve someone because they're black, that broke down racial barriers. I don't think someone has the right to discriminate in a buisness. If someone wants to have to deal with blacks, then don't open a buisness.

But honestly? "If I'm not allowed to do this one thing it's similar to us being ruled by a KING!" Get over yourself man, businesses having to deal with everyone is needed for our society, not having it would not work. You can say "the laws aren't needed, because people will break down the restrictions because they'd want the money", to which I'd say "bull****". I don't know of a single example where that happened on a wide scale (If you know one send it to me!), but that's also based on the idea that humans actually work for their best interest, which is silly. People work for what they think their best interest is, or for any other reason. If people only worked for their self interest then we'd never have discrimination in businesses and no one would ever die for a material good

 

[pockyD]

"Nobody has a RIGHT to enter a store and demand service"

Your argument was based on that, but you hadn't supported why, so yeah, that's what I was posting against, since you then said another right, but didn't give reasons for one being a right but the other one not being a right.

well, I'd actually say that that statement is my actual "conclusion", since if you recognize that, then it's trivial to go from "nobody" to "___" where you insert whatever person type you want into that statement

People don't have the right to go into a store and demand service. People are allowed to discriminate, that's why there are "no shirts no shoes no service" signs. It's certain ways that people discriminate that's illegal, such as skin color.

My point is that there shouldn't exist "certain ways".

Also: I'm not sure, but I have a feeling that I remember you posting being angry at how you can't go into certain areas of your town because everyone there only speaks spanish. Do you not see a contradiction? (if that wasn't you, then yeah I'm dumb and my bad).

wasn't me

I don't think Pluvia is being realistic. Discriminating wouldn't lead to full blown riots. I also think Jam is being, honestly, dumb. Talking about how they gave "the white man money" is ridiculous, civil rights movement was what allowed that not to be true. If it wasn't for the anti-discrimination legislation, such as making it illegal to not hire someone because they're black/not serve someone because they're black, that broke down racial barriers.

ok, so maybe it worked out for the best. My main main underlying viewpoint is that it's not the "ideal" situation to have the government try to provide the "best" for as many people as possible; I feel that the "ideal" is to provide an environment where we can freely make our own decisions and accept the consequences, even if they aren't "optimal" by the government's definition.

I don't think someone has the right to discriminate in a buisness. If someone wants to have to deal with blacks, then don't open a buisness.

Probably a simple typo on your part.. but anyway, I disagree with what you're trying to say. "If fox wrecks every character on hyrule temple, then just play fox"... well, not really, right? You might be right, but that is by no means a widely accepted truth, nor should it be an "easy" solution

But honestly? "If I'm not allowed to do this one thing it's similar to us being ruled by a KING!" Get over yourself man, businesses having to deal with everyone is needed for our society, not having it would not work.

Plenty of businesses already choose to only deal with certain groups of people. Why would a racial barrier be that drastically different?

You can say "the laws aren't needed, because people will break down the restrictions because they'd want the money", to which I'd say "bull****". I don't know of a single example where that happened on a wide scale (If you know one send it to me!),

don't really know what you want an example of... people doing something they don't like because they get paid more for it?

I work a job I don't like because it pays nicely , and I think a LOT of people do that too.

but that's also based on the idea that humans actually work for their best interest, which is silly. People work for what they think their best interest is, or for any other reason. If people only worked for their self interest then we'd never have discrimination in businesses and no one would ever die for a material good

But what people perceive as what their best interest is IS self-interest. If I would rather pay $100 for a jar of peanut butter rather than walk an extra 5 minutes and get that same jar for $5, should some g-man step in and stop me?

Like I said above, I prefer the values of freedom and independence to having the government guide me towards what might objectively be the "best" decisions.

 

[Eor]

well, I'd actually say that that statement is my actual "conclusion", since if you recognize that, then it's trivial to go from "nobody" to "___" where you insert whatever person type you want into that statement

I admit I skimmed a lot of the arguments between you and Pluvia, but I didn't see anything leading up to that conclussion

My point is that there shouldn't exist "certain ways".

Why not? Is society worse off because of these laws? I feel like you're acting off of an "all or nothing" mindset, that any government control is the same as complete tyranny, therefore there should be no government control. is that it?

wasn't me

LIAR

I feel that the "ideal" is to provide an environment where we can freely make our own decisions and accept the consequences, even if they aren't "optimal" by the government's definition.

But that wasn't ideal, because it kept an entire race of people down. I think that your "ideal" is the best "ideal". I don't think that just because it's the "ideal" that it's feasible or logical to every aspect of the market, as you acknowledged with the fact that it worked out for the best.

Probably a simple typo on your part.. but anyway, I disagree with what you're trying to say. "If fox wrecks every character on hyrule temple, then just play fox"... well, not really, right? You might be right, but that is by no means a widely accepted truth, nor should it be an "easy" solution

I don't follow your example at all nor see how it really fits in with what we're talking about except on a completely abstract point that doesn't work, so I'm not going to mention it beyond this. It's not meant as an "easy" solution. If someone hates blacks, then they shouldn't go into areas where they'd have to meet with them. If I hate gay people, I shouldn't go to their pride parades or open businesses where I might have to meet them. Basically if I hate some type of people, I shouldn't go open a buisness where I might have to meet with them. The logic behind it is a widely held truth. It's similar to the "it hurts when I do this", "well then stop doing it!" conversation.

Plenty of businesses already choose to only deal with certain groups of people. Why would a racial barrier be that drastically different?

You're talking about marketing. People market clothes to white/black ethnicity, and people market towards rich and so forth. The difference is that if I decide I want to buy the clothes rap artists are selling, I won't be legally denied.

don't really know what you want an example of... people doing something they don't like because they get paid more for it?

I work a job I don't like because it pays nicely , and I think a LOT of people do that too.

No no, not that. I meant an example of a society easing racial barriers due to the free market.

But what people perceive as what their best interest is IS self-interest. If I would rather pay $100 for a jar of peanut butter rather than walk an extra 5 minutes and get that same jar for $5, should some g-man step in and stop me?

No, that's silly. Why should they? How does this relate to that at all? Again, this is the "all or nothing" type stuff. You're seeing any government interference as being the same as all types of government interferance.

And I found an easier way to say what I meant. People don't work in self interest, people just do what they think will make them happy. Self interest would say that you'd walk five minutes to get the peanut butter, it'd be stupid to buy it for $100, but if you think you need that peanut butter now then you'd buy it now. Not self interest, just based on what makes you happy. And what people think will make them happy is based on false ideas of attachment and ignorance. If someone is happier saying "**** you!" to black customers then they will, even if they'd get more money and live better if they didn't.

Like I said above, I prefer the values of freedom and independence to having the government guide me towards what might objectively be the "best" decisions.[/QUOTE]

 

[pockyD]

I admit I skimmed a lot of the arguments between you and Pluvia, but I didn't see anything leading up to that conclussion

well, I didn't spell it out, so I apologize, but the underlying concept is that one shouldn't have the right to really "demand" anything from anybody else

Why not? Is society worse off because of these laws? I feel like you're acting off of an "all or nothing" mindset, that any government control is the same as complete tyranny, therefore there should be no government control. is that it?

...because the lines are arbitrarily drawn, and there is no clear area of "legitimacy". Let's say the person on shift is allergic to cat hair... would you say it is fair or unfair to not allow any cat owners into the store? Would you instead enforce the store to have some mechanism to scan for cat hair and determine whether the customer is fit to enter? Or, (by your standards) worse yet, not hire any employees with strange allergies? (note: assume the store is not a pet store )

LIAR

sometimes, but not here

But that wasn't ideal, because it kept an entire race of people down. I think that your "ideal" is the best "ideal". I don't think that just because it's the "ideal" that it's feasible or logical to every aspect of the market, as you acknowledged with the fact that it worked out for the best.

it worked out for the "best" in terms of the greater good, but it certainly did not work out for the best for people who happened to not like black people

it's just that (this might just be repetition of what I've said earlier) I think that it's more important to allow people to pursue their own perception of what is "best" for them rather than have an actual "best" forced upon them. This is clearly not black and white, but it's probably the fundamental disagreement that is separating us on the issue.

I don't follow your example at all nor see how it really fits in with what we're talking about except on a completely abstract point that doesn't work, so I'm not going to mention it beyond this. It's not meant as an "easy" solution. If someone hates blacks, then they shouldn't go into areas where they'd have to meet with them. If I hate gay people, I shouldn't go to their pride parades or open businesses where I might have to meet them. Basically if I hate some type of people, I shouldn't go open a buisness where I might have to meet with them. The logic behind it is a widely held truth. It's similar to the "it hurts when I do this", "well then stop doing it!" conversation.

Well, it's closer to "it hurts when i stab my hand...", "so get rid of your hand!"

there ARE no areas where you would "not have to meet them"... and if you were to find one, and one day someone of the group you were not too fond of walked in anyway, what can you do? RATS I guess i have to shut down my business. If you say "deal with it", I might explode - mainly because that just brings us back to the original argument of whether they should have to "deal with it" to begin with

You're talking about marketing. People market clothes to white/black ethnicity, and people market towards rich and so forth. The difference is that if I decide I want to buy the clothes rap artists are selling, I won't be legally denied.

Tons of things require licenses. Other things will only be sold to certain types of businesses or clientele too. Do you think "exclusive contracts" should be legal?

No no, not that. I meant an example of a society easing racial barriers due to the free market.

the closest thing to a "free market" would probably be black markets... and from what I understand (I obviously have very little direct experience in the area), the whole point of them is that you can get what you want as long as you choose to pay the price... in fact, sellers often don't even meet the buyers, right?

aside from that (which is all conjecture anyway; like I said, I have no experience with it), how many free markets PERIOD can you name?

i do know that stores in other countries often market specifically to tourists, simply because that's where all the money is, even if they have differing racial opinions (asia is a prime example of this)

No, that's silly. Why should they? How does this relate to that at all? Again, this is the "all or nothing" type stuff. You're seeing any government interference as being the same as all types of government interferance.

well it doesn't have to be that way; maybe for every 10 ft you walk, you get $5 off your jar of peanut butter or something ; I'm not suggesting an all-or-nothing at all

And I found an easier way to say what I meant. People don't work in self interest, people just do what they think will make them happy. Self interest would say that you'd walk five minutes to get the peanut butter, it'd be stupid to buy it for $100, but if you think you need that peanut butter now then you'd buy it now. Not self interest, just based on what makes you happy. And what people think will make them happy is based on false ideas of attachment and ignorance. If someone is happier saying "**** you!" to black customers then they will, even if they'd get more money and live better if they didn't.

Well aside from the fact that this seems to be boiling down to the semantics of how we each define "self-interest", I think that people SHOULD be allowed to do "what they think will make them happy", even if it blatantly ultimately won't (of course including the standard prequalifiers of infringing other peoples' rights, etc. etc.)

if I'm running my private business "poorly" from an objective point of view, the government won't send a team of consultants to help streamline my model and operations or anything, nor should they. It's simply impossible for a third party to discern what I'm really seeking to get out of my business. If the government tries to make everything run "optimally", that's pretty much communism