So you have independently confirmed it by thinking about it. Got it.

Depends on the law, but for example I support the right of business owners to refuse service to any person, no matter the reason. I don't think the feds need to intervene over a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign or a someone that refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple or any other reason, no matter how "unfair" it might seem. If you're going to have property rights (and no, people should not be property), then you have to allow people the choice of how to utilize their property, as long as it doesn't harm others (not being able to buy a cake or a meal is not harm).

The link between fertility rate and income is well-established.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-ec...rtility-income

There may be disagreement over how much the independent variables influence the dependent variable or whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, but there's no doubt that poor people have more children.

I don't need to independent confirm something that is a basic law of economics.
If the government said "for each child you have, we will charge you $10k," would the number of children increase or decrease? I don't know, I better try to independently confirm that somehow.

Because those things are the same.

They still get to drink from a fountain - so no harm there.

I'm not saying I think it's moral, but should it be illegal? Probably not.

I never indicated any racial component. It sounds like you are the one being racist, assuming that certain races are poorer and/or have more children.

Yes, I tend to favor a limited state over anarachy, and we're arguing about which economic systems have been and will be successful.

The government doesn't care about poor people, it only wants to influence votes. What about churches and private charities helping the poor? What about friends and family? If the government is going to help the poor, why not do it at a state/local level, where there is more flexibility to allow for different potential solutions. The collectivists don't want that, they want to impose their solution on everyone, with no choice allowed within the country.

So you want to try to rectify all the injustices of the world, past, present, and future, through legislation? A noble goal, perhaps, but impossible and impractical. There will always be discrimination and there will always be unspoken or unknown reasons for such. How are you going to repair actual, but unproveable forms of discrimination with which you disagree?

Also, you didn't answer the question: If you or a beloved friend or family member needed a life-saving surgery, would you want that surgery performed by someone who attained their position purely on merit, or someone that (was perhaps disadvantaged, but) attained their position based on quota(s) (or nepotism, or something other than purely merit)?

OK, good to know that your libertarianism is really just an itching to go back to a stratified society where certain groups of people don't have the same rights to exist and function in society.

We've already established ITT that land ownership is a social construct. It is not some natural thing that someone gets to own land, and as such, it isn't a necessity that someone designated to be a land owner by the government get to have their own little fiefdom on that land to exclude and include whoever they will at their own particular whim.

There's nothing preventing you from helping the poor... oh, except laws that make it illegal to hand out food in some jurisdictions, stuff like that... but it's government, so it must be for some noble reason they enacted such a law.

Almost certainly cleaner and safer than the water the government provided in Flint, Michigan, among other places.

The government's role is not to legislate morality.

So do you support private property rights or do you suggest communal land ownership? Who determines how land is used and by whom?

Basic economic instincts need to be tested in the real world. Just Google "impact of welfare programs on fertility rates". Lots of papers come up. The first one I read was one that tested the opposite, i.e. when you take away welfare does the birth rate go down? The findings of the study was that they do not, which runs against your instinctive rule.

You'll reach a lot of poor conclusions relying on untested assumptions about human behavior.

Ignoring that minor detail that people need to eat food to stay alive, don't you think those signs that used to read

NO BLACKS
NO DOGS
NO IRISH

were at least psychologically harmful to those three groups?

I support private property rights in the context of government regulation, such as public accommodation laws.

There are lots of complicating factors which could influence that.

I just think it's absurd that a woman can have a child, get public assistance (which is an obvious admission that they can't support the child themselves) and then have another child and expect more assistance. Sure, having the first child can be a mistake, we all make poor decisions at times, but that should be a wake up call to stop having children until you are certain that you can support them yourself.

People don't need to eat wedding cake (or any cake) to stay alive.

Should we mandate grocery stores open 24 hours and have every variety of food in the world available, because I had a hankering for some exotic food item at 3 a.m. and there wasn't a store open nearby?

Definitely, but you can't legislate the prevention of all psychological harm.

I'm not saying it's moral, but I don't think it should be illegal.

You're advocating for a system where it will be inevitable. You're also almost certainly cribbing notes from folks whose aim was bringing that back.

So if you owned a coffee shop and a person came in that smelled so bad you that all of your customers had to hold their noses to prevent vomiting... and had roaches crawling all over him... you should be required to serve him and let him sit down and stay however long he wished?

What if you have a house on a small plot of land? You think it's okay for anyone to just show up at your house or on your land and do whatever they wish? Why or why not?

What's wrong with public accomodation laws on a state and/or local level, instead of a federal level? Then people can disagree and still live in a location where their viewpoint coincides with the law.

you were so close

No, just mandate that stores are available during normal hours to The Blacks and The Irish and The Dogs for normal items.



I'd rather you'd have responded to my earlier posts.

Man, it's almost like we can have public accommodation laws that protect protected classes and also decide that filthy people are not a protected class.

This bull**** switching back and forth between consequentialist arguments and first principles arguments is bull****. You've already conceded that you don't have a first principles, top down mechanism to deduce your political preferences. We don't have to beat down your strawman that because I think the government can mandate that some people must be accommodated on some kinds of private property, all people must be accommodated on all kinds of private property.

Because locality is a canard used by people who want to discriminate. It's no firmly held principle that anyone actually believes in. It's a bull**** argument tossed out as a veneer over racism.

Roaches don't crawl all over people while they're walking in coffee shops. Maybe if they're sitting still in the dark but at that point we're dealing with some manner of crazy coffee shop.

In Which We Rehash Basic Entomology

LOL, now we’re re-litigating segregated lunch counters. This really is a retro-classic thread.

Bell’s theorem up in this *****.

Ahhh... so SOME classes are protected and SOME are not?
Now we see another aspect of how utopia really operates. It's really to promote perceived "protected classes" from perceived unfair discrimination.
And who defines filthy? And what if someone claims they weren't filthy (they put on some deodorant, say "there were no roaches on me" and there are no witnesses)?

It's clear that the writers of the Constitution only wanted the federal government to have those powers that are necessary for them to have. Anything that can be handled by the states themselves was intended to be handled by the states. It's some of you that keep bringing up race and making false accusations of racism. Sure, some forms of discrimination include racism, but that doesn't mean laws that allow people to choose how to live their lives and utilize their property without harming others are racist.

We’ve covered off basic racism, so we’re moving on to basic sexism?