Are you saying me specifically, or restaurant owners?

wtf at people criticizing Rand's performance on Rachel Maddow btw. I just watched it, he handled himself incredibly well. I liked the phrasing about the gun toting in "public" restaurants where the owners don't want gun toting. (There are gun owners who believe this, and I've heard that the Judge has argued the same, and its pretty gross).

What's the argument? That people should be allowed to carry guns even if the restaurant owners don't want them to?

The argument is that the store owner should be allowed to set the rules for his store.

If the store owner doesn't want to serve blacks or whites or anyone else they shouldn't be forced too.... That is their property they can do as they please.

If the store owner doesn't want to have guns they shouldn't be forced too... That is their property they can do as they please.

Now if you are to say that the store owner can not choose weather or not to serve blacks then the same store owner should not be able to choose weather or not to have guns... Both are property rights issues and the gov should have no say in property rights issues... Other to protect the rights of the property owner.

Edit: Just to be clear the argument states that if the gov can say you must serve blacks then the government can also say guns are allowed anywhere... That is a right given to you by the constitution... just like the right to eat at any restaurant you want.


You can't pick and choose to protect property rights... you either do it or don't.

ya, if you follow the liberal "logic" to its conclusion, you end up with store owners not having a choice if people have guns in their restaurants or not. Of course, Maddow was unable to comprehend such a statement, and immediately jumped to WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE BEATEN BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO SIT AT THE WHITE MAN'S COUNTER HUH WHAT ABOUT THEM ZOMG.

Truly hilarious performance by her at the end, when Rand whipped out the gun-toting-comparison, she just totally lost her composure for a minute because she's too dumb to think about what he said.

Well technically people can and people do, it just makes them unprincipled, self serving, hypocrites.

Everyone who opens a restaurant knows they cannot refuse service to certain people. It comes with the territory. You cannot do anything you please on your property. You must also follow the laws of the land. This is one of them.

During the time of Jim Crow laws, would you still hold the position that you must follow the laws of the land?

There's probably some fancy name for this kind of argument, but I don't know it, so I'll just call it "argument from that's-just-the-way-it-is." To see how silly it is, consider someone in 1860 saying the following.

"Blacks can come to America, but if they do, there's a high chance they will be enslaved. It comes with the territory. They must follow the rules of the land. This is one of them."

Now of course you would refute this argument by disputing it on other grounds (i.e. slavery is wrong even if it's legal), but that's just the point, legality itself isn't enough.

Vixticator, are you in favor of legalizing marijuana?

Ok but I'm not appealing to legality to support the rule just saying if you get into the business you know what the rules are ahead of time whatever they happen to be so you aren't being "forced" to do anything here. This particular rule has near universal approval. Again, not saying this is what makes it "right" or w/e. If owners vehemently disapprove they can choose to disobey and try to shift public opinion blah blah blah but my advice would be to stay out of the business.

Yea, I would definitely agree with your advice as far as practicality goes.

lol rly?

OH WAIT, nobody is confused about the status quo. But thanks for jumping from a normative description to a positive one. That always helps the discussion.

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...28&page=0&vc=1

bump 4 riverman

I sometimes invite select friends over and cook hamburgers and we watch the football game. So I've offered food to SOME people. Do I now have to offer it to EVERYONE?

That's one way to put it. Good luck developing a consistent and universal one, but in either case, post about it in a separate thread. An ad hoc approach is good enough for practical work, considering that that's basically all anyone has.

(And most of us manage to get along just fine with each other.)

No. If that was your only complaint about anti-discrimination laws or the CRA in particular, you can sleep peacefully tonight!

(Though I'm a little hurt that you make them hamburgers but all you ever offer us is hot dogs.)

What if you are already in the business and then the law is "forced" upon you?

A better example is the bar owners in states and cities that have lost business due to smoking regulations.

According to the ridiculous argument I was making as a joke, yes. That's how it would be if the law had equal disdain for your property rights when serving food in your home as it does for the property rights of a restaurant owner. Serve one, serve all.

I think it's disappointing that most Libertarians here will defend the Right to Private Property to such an extreme that it allows racism and discrimination. As if owning property gives you the right to do whatever you want with it no matter what the cost to anyone else. We live in a country where everyone is equal to everyone else. A country where we have strived long and hard to secure the rights and liberties of everyone who lives here. Libertarianism is about Rule of Law, libertarianism is about equality, libertarianism is about liberty. Allowing someone to discriminate based on race or ethnicity does not help accomplish any of those goals and it restricts the right and liberties of citizens who expect to be treated not based on the color of their skin but by their merits as a person.

Also the argument that the free market would not allow businesses to be racist and discriminatory is naiveté at it's best. It is very true that many businesses would suffer if they did discriminate, but I would not be surprised to find out that in such an environment some businesses would succeed and grow by catering to the market demand of racists who would like to only eat with other racists.

For the 50 billionth ****ing time no one is saying a true free market "wouldn't allow racist business."

What? I don't give a **** about Rand Paul, he's practically a neo-con. I'm allowed to defend people I don't support and do so all the time, so stop being ******ed.

Not especially. It's factual, of course, but it's not going to convince the people on "the other side" of anything. It's more to help people on "my side" see what they're dealing with more than anything.

I agree with your assessment. Racially exclusive restaurants would exist as long as there was a market for them. I don't think they'd be particularly common, but maybe they would be in some areas of the country. The question I have is: Why shouldn't racists be allowed to eat in the racially exclusive restaurants they would prefer?

Ross Douthat takes Rand Paul to task