The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

[Cassity14]

Cassity,

Imagine if you and I went for beers and they wouldn't let me in because I wasn't White?

We'd tell them to fuck off, use whatever social ability and capital we have to make sure people know it's owned by a bigoted, racist fuck, and we go somewhere that would let you in.

I know I'm pretty out there when it comes to this topic, and my stance is rooted in a faith of people and society that I've begun to question a lot more over the last few years.

That said, I still would rather put the power of these things into the hands of society at large (consumers) in a capitalist society.

 

[gourimoko]

You mentioned private property ownership. That's the way I approached the question. Without private property, and therefore a right to that property, you're right. The mob, government, whatever you want to call it can rightfully govern over whatever it wants and force whatever rules it feels appropriate on you at gunpoint. With private property, and the right to that property, they can't rightfully do it.

Optimus.. c'mon man.. you know damn well you're approaching the question within the framework of anarchism. We do not live in an anarchy. Explaining to me what private property rights are and what they entail is pointless. You and I both know that we both understand natural law (and don't disagree), but we're currently not operating under natural law, but instead, under the laws of our system of government.

In an anarchist society, yes, a "business" would have a right to discriminate. That's not in dispute.

In our republic, no, a business does not have a right to discriminate.

 

[gourimoko]

We'd tell them to fuck off, use whatever social ability and capital we have to make sure people know it's owned by a bigoted, racist fuck, and we go somewhere that would let you in.

I know I'm pretty out there when it comes to this topic, and my stance is rooted in a faith of people and society that I've begun to question a lot more over the last few years.

That said, I still would rather put the power of these things into the hands of society at large (consumers) in a capitalist society.

I'd be curious as to your thoughts on the issues I raised above, regarding sexual coercion/harassment, minimum wage, gender discrimination and pay/positions, housing discrimination, taxation, or even climate regulations?

If you're operating under the belief that businesses are free to act in this way because it's a private choice, then wouldn't all of these issues fall under the same principle?

 

[OptimusPrime]

Optimus.. c'mon man.. you know damn well you're approaching the question within the framework of anarchism. We do not live in an anarchy. Explaining to me what private property rights are and what they entail is pointless. You and I both know that we both understand natural law (and don't disagree), but we're currently not operating under natural law, but instead, under the laws of our system of government.

In an anarchist society, yes, a "business" would have a right to discriminate. That's not in dispute.

In our republic, no, a business does not have a right to discriminate.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just jumping ahead to the conclusion. In an anarchist society, people would have the right to their property. In our republic, they do not.

 

[Cassity14]

The problem is when these things happen and it DOESN'T destroy their name in society. A lot of mobs are unjust and willing to discriminate. That's why we have the Civil Rights Act.

The idea that the market will take care of discriminatory businesses is patently false.

I'm assuming you're referring to the segregation era with this comment. That's fair, but there are also glaring differences between that society and ours. Do we think that all of those differences can simply be attributed to a few governmental actions?

Yeah, it's not the mob, it's called the government, the government that "governs" over commerce, trade, and business transactions.

In an anarchy, sure, every man for himself. Deny me service at your own peril. But we don't live in an anarchy; so I'm not sure why we would approach this question from such a framework?

It's approached from the belief that the government should be as hands-off of business as possible - probably the only "principle" I really agree with Republican party on. I put that in quotes because they're far from consistent when it comes to legislating to this.

I don't think the government should be able to tell a cake baker who he can and cannot choose to bake a cake for as he's not denying the fundamental right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness in any sort of substantiated way.

 

[gourimoko]

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just jumping ahead to the conclusion. In an anarchist society, people would have the right to their property. In our republic, they do not.

Well, conversely, in an anarchist society, your right to your property extends only insofar as you can protect said property. In our republic, one could argue that the weaker among us have greater protections... again, to an extent, obviously.

 

[gourimoko]

I'm assuming you're referring to the segregation era with this comment. That's fair, but there are also glaring differences between that society and ours. Do we think that all of those differences can simply be attributed to a few governmental actions?

I don't think segregation would be wholly unpopular in many areas of the country. I think a segregated business, or segregated housing, would do just fine, particularly if the practice were entirely legal.

If someone said "this is a Christian community;" and discriminated against non-Christians, I would think that many Christians, particularly Evangelical Protestants, wouldn't have a problem with that. Even though that works against societal interests.

It's approached from the belief that the government should be as hands-off of business as possible - probably the only "principle" I really agree with Republican party on. I put that in quotes because they're far from consistent when it comes to legislating to this.

But, if government is hands-off when it comes to businesses, then, well, business could effectively do just about anything right? So long as they aren't denying a person's negative rights, their right to life, liberty, property, etc, then, the businesses could do whatever, no? That includes pollute, harass, coerce, disenfranchise, underpay, exploit.. so long as it was a voluntary association, then, it'd be legal, right?

I don't think the government should be able to tell a cake baker who he can and cannot choose to bake a cake for as he's not denying the fundamental right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness in any sort of substantiated way.

See what I mean...

Then how can the government collect said baker's taxes? Upon what ethical grounds does the government have to tax any business if this is the framework in which we choose to operate?

 

[OptimusPrime]

Well, conversely, in an anarchist society, your right to your property extends only insofar as you can protect said property. In our republic, one could argue that the weaker among us have greater protections... again, to an extent, obviously.

It can be argued either way. Maybe they have greater protections, but they have greater threats, namely a massive, organized, legalized band of murderers and thieves from which these greater protections do them no good.

However, this isn't the place. Trump doesn't deserve anarchy being discussed in his thread. I don't want people to get the idea that the piece of shit is some kind of libertarian that gives one fuck about anyone's rights.

 

[The Oi]

I'm not upset, just perpetually embarrassed by how moronic our President is.

You’re definitely not upset. You feed off of mis-steps like this. You need them.

 

[Binkster]

You’re definitely not upset. You feed off of mis-steps like this. You need them.

Ok?

 

[gourimoko]

I can be argued either way. Maybe they have greater protections, but they have greater threats, namely a massive, organized, legalized band of murderers and thieves from which these greater protections do them no good.

However, this isn't the place. Trump doesn't deserve anarchy being discussed in his thread. I don't want people to get the idea that the piece of shit is some kind of libertarian that gives one fuck about anyone's rights.

Totally agree, and again, I'm sympathetic to the ideal. More of a Chomsky-esque anarchism, but anarchism in spirit nonetheless.

 

[The Oi]

Ok?

Ok.

 

[-Akronite-]

I'm assuming you're referring to the segregation era with this comment. That's fair, but there are also glaring differences between that society and ours. Do we think that all of those differences can simply be attributed to a few governmental actions?

Absolutely not. But in order to ensure we as a society don't regress, I think it's important to have these laws.

It would be rare, but I'm sure there could be some towns in America where you might get away with a "no blacks" sign. Certain parts of society haven't warmed up to gays, or Muslims, or any number of groups that shouldn't have to face discrimination based on what the market may or may not allow.

 

[Cassity14]

So, if this is really a matter of private businesses having the negative right to choose how they conduct business because "it's theirs, they own it" (implied by the mentioning of private ownership), then that would apply to every aforementioned scenario, i.e.:

1) I'm not hiring Black people, because I don't want to.
2) I'm not promoting women out of lower positions because they shouldn't lead businesses.
3) I'm not renting to Asians because I don't want to.
4) I'm not going to repair my building and employees and customers will just have to deal with the risks.
5) I'm not going to adhere to minimum wage, it's a private employment contract.
6) I'm not paying taxes on private sales, it's my money.

This goes on and on and on...

1) Your business, your right, and I hope you rot in hell. I won't take my business there and we all have a right to protest its existence.
2) See above
3) Housing gets into a different set of things. Housing laws I'm okay with being stricter.
4) That's a safety issue subject to health code and inspections
5) If it's a contract, I have no issues with employees working for less than minimum wage. I'm not economist, however, and that would probably have bad effects that were probably originally legislated against.
6) Your money was made in our country. If you don't want to pay taxes, start your own.

*Obviously "you" is not @gourimoko here.

 

[gourimoko]

Absolutely not. But in order to ensure we as a society don't regress, I think it's important to have these laws.

It would be rare, but I'm sure there could be some towns in America where you might get away with a "no blacks" sign. Certain parts of society haven't warmed up to gays, or Muslims, or any number of groups that shouldn't have to face discrimination based on what the market may or may not allow.

A "No Muslims" sign or "No Gays" would do just fine in many places around the country. You could imagine any number of discriminatory signs... And we shouldn't think that society, by default, would be intolerant of intolerance. Countries that are modern and liberal, like Japan, have signs that bar non-ethnically Japanese from entering bars, clubs, gyms, etc. Society is and social norms are highly malleable.