Refusing Service to Someone Is NOT a Crime

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
What if there is no or limited choice? If you live in a small town and the only doctor refuses you treatment based on skin colour /sexuality/religion?

our society is supposed to protect people.. We have a limited socialism because the horrors of the other thing are too much to bare. If people think long and hard.. They may realize taxes are saving them from losing their land and their house and their business and EVERYTHING...

The rules are there because some of you guys are kids. Kids fight and take their toys home.. Grownups pay taxes so the other grownups can't take their toys home.. If they could we would be in civil war.


This post is not directed at the person I am responding too. Just a connection point.

Republicans complain about the middle east a lot but don't realize what it is... The middle east is NOT socialism.. LOL. I also despise democrats so don't get me wrong. It's just neither one of those camps is close to the point of MAX RETURNS. Trust me the returns matter more than your ideology. The returns are the REAL.



Iv'e lived for 30 years.. And I have never once seen a situation where refusing service to a customer was a good idea. Only times have been if cops were needed. Then it was a good idea.

I have seen lots of businesses lose their business though.

a reply to: Metallicus

I volunteer to live in your society.

Please pick me first!!!!!

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
In the day.." Management reserve's the right to refuse service to anyone." was posted on signs in many cafes and bars.

Which would be legal for individual ownership, but NOT for corporations. An individual has rights a corporation does not.

ETA: I realize that individual ownership would have to be capped at some number of employees or revenue to ensure that people do not take advantage of the law. Otherwise corporations could simply have a 'owner'. People would have the right to a certain size of business to provide for themselves and extended family without becoming 'public' and being taxed and subject to 'corporate' rules.

No, corps are public companies that trade stock on the market.

Private companies do not.

That should be the point at which they are no longer private.

Unless they reach say 1,000 employees or $5,000,000 in smusl profits max, I prefer a lower number.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: greencmp

That might work. But you would have to severely punish lawbreakers in order to provide a sufficient deterrent.

I watch a lot of old westerns on tv. Hanging at the end of a rope seems to work pretty well in that regard.

-dex

Why?

Most folks don't want to hurt others, but do accidentally sometimes.

Why should a simple mistake lime getting out if your car while it is drive result in the death penalty.

Accidents happen, we aren't perfect, all of us screw the pouch from time to time.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: greencmp

That might work. But you would have to severely punish lawbreakers in order to provide a sufficient deterrent.

I watch a lot of old westerns on tv. Hanging at the end of a rope seems to work pretty well in that regard.

-dex

Why?

Most folks don't want to hurt others, but do accidentally sometimes.

Why should a simple mistake lime getting out if your car while it is drive result in the death penalty.

Accidents happen, we aren't perfect, all of us screw the pouch from time to time.

In a completely free society you would be shot for crippling/killing someone.
In a free society there is no insurance. You killed someone so now your life is on the line.

In a better society sometimes car insurance pays for your car.. Without laws, I would kill more of your family than you hurt of mine.. I would make you pay.

IOU's are no good. What sort of system could even deal with IOU's in such a society????


IN FACT society is the ONLY reason you don't get punished AS harshly for messing up as you would be in natural jungle world.

a reply to: Metallicus

I also believe in limited government however, I think we can't ever have that unless/until discrimination is truly a thing of the past therefore I believe that anti-discrimination laws are necessary right now. It's not as complex as people make it out to be either.

Liberty must include equal access not only to government, the voting process and education but to employment and the goods and services. Going as far back to the beginnings of Common Law, businesses open to the public did not have the right to refuse service unless a person was harming their business, it was accepted and codified that a business open to the public must serve the entire public, it's just that as time went on who was deemed part of the public extended beyond white, christian, straight men. It would be far too easy, to wage economic war against the 'undesirable'.

Businesses open to the public benefit from tax payer dollars (infrastructure etc.) and must not, even operated by private individuals, be granted the enormous power of arbitrarily deciding/declaring who is a member of the public and who is not. By opening a business to the public you are engaging in society in a very prominent way, that must mean a compromise with society, not an authoritative position within it. This stance is also better for free market principles.

If a person's religious interpretations place them in a position where they feel they must not interact with people they feel are sinners, they have no place opening or operating a business open to the public and should instead operate a private business.

There must be space where individual liberties don't trump others individual liberties, that space is known as the public.

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: Metallicus

Unless it is used as a tool of institutionalized oppression, then, really it is a crime of both morality and liberty.

Well, here is where it gets sticky. Please learn to live with "social re-engineering," backed by the premise of "for the common good."

a reply to: DexterRiley

But you would have to severely punish lawbreakers in order to provide a sufficient deterrent.

I am a firm believer in the "eye for an eye" rule of law. [ Yeah,yeah,yeah, the whole world blind yadayadayada ] If you damage property, you pay for it out of your own pocket. If you harm someone, you get the same. A fine example is in one of my favorite books. A man is driving carelessly and causes an accident, resulting in a person losing a leg. At an appointed day and time, that man has his leg held in place while a car runs over it, he has to lie there for the exact amount of time the other did, before help arrives and he is then taken to the hospital, where his leg is amputated.
"Law enforcement" is nothing more than slang for "generating revenue". The more laws, the more reasons for them to get money from you.

a reply to: Metallicus

Recognizing security of a person in their person and property is really the only way to ensure personal liberty.

You are spot on. If it is mine, then it should be mine to do with as I please until I use it to damage another person's person or property.

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: Metallicus

Unless it is used as a tool of institutionalized oppression, then, really it is a crime of both morality and liberty.

No. Only the government can "institutionalize" a thing through the law. Jim Crow was institutionalized in that people had to use their person's and property in a discriminatory way even if they would otherwise have chosen not to. That part of the argument is never brought up. People just assume that everyone is the South was otherwise fine with it. Maybe they were, but when they talk about it as institutionalized ... it was because it was a government mandate that it had to be that way NO MATTER WHAT the individual might say about it.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
In the day.." Management reserve's the right to refuse service to anyone." was posted on signs in many cafes and bars.

Which would be legal for individual ownership, but NOT for corporations. An individual has rights a corporation does not.

ETA: I realize that individual ownership would have to be capped at some number of employees or revenue to ensure that people do not take advantage of the law. Otherwise corporations could simply have a 'owner'. People would have the right to a certain size of business to provide for themselves and extended family without becoming 'public' and being taxed and subject to 'corporate' rules.

Why? Why would it have to be capped? If the same family still holds the business. It's theirs no matter the size.

Just wait till the new indiana law gets used againts christians, its going to be a # show on here about how terrible the gubernment is.

a reply to: Metallicus

I was with you until your implied consent for government control of business...if you consider yourself an anarchist, that certianly does not fit the bill.

But overall, I agree with your sentiment, and have mirrored it on a few threads myself.

a reply to: Metallicus

there's a big flaw with your scheme
i requires big government's guns to enforce.

no thanks...

a reply to: Metallicus

I believe that unless a crime against person or property occurs that no crime has been committed and that no punishment should be enforced by society.

Few benefit from society as much as the business owner.

Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.

Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.

-- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice

When a business owner denies other members of society access to public accommodations he is infringing upon the rights of those individuals to enjoy equally the benefits of the society from which the business owner has himself profited.

a reply to: Metallicus

Refusing to do business with someone fits the definition of a crime you provided because it does, in fact, harm that person. You are assuming that the person could go find that service somewhere else, but this is not always the case.

Here is an example: an electric company refuses to provide services to atheists, Christians, gays, whoever. That person is then without power. They try to use another electric company, but that company either doesn't exist or has the same policy.

The person in the example was harmed because of denial of service.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

But when it comes to being discriminated against and not being served. There is the logic of why you would want to give them your business in the first place. I'd rather just tell them to get stuffed, go write a very negative review on the internet about them, then just be down with it. But that's just me.

I believe we had that still going on when I was a small child. They had whites only diners down south. Oh yeah,there were riots and things over that.The fact is,if you open a public sector business,it IS your business to serve the public.You are in your 'rights' to remove unruly patrons,people that are so filthy that it impacts your business negatively,or people that won't pay for the service,etc. But you don't have a right to decide,well I just won't serve these people,they aren't the right color,or those because they aren't the right religion,or I'm against the war in Iraq,so I won't serve anyone with a uniform on. It gets out of hand totally.

Yes the public can pretty much run a company out of business over that through protests,boycotts,etc. You would think that people would be smart enough to know that you can't keep your doors open if your closing them to whoever you want.I'll bet Westboro Baptist church is laughing.

a reply to: Metallicus

Explain to me how corporations come about without actual people owning the business? Major fail. Like most of the premises outlined in the opening rant.
If you're considering running for office let me know. That way I can vote for your opponent.

a reply to: greencmp

It seems to me that law enforcement prevents lots of crimes by its very existence. Prime example is how when there is a police car next to you on the road you stay within the speed limit, stop on yellow lights, and use directional signals when turning. ( at the very first opportunity to get away from the cop).