Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Private Discrimination

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:51:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Should a private business have authority to wilfully and voluntarily discriminate against its consumers?

Ex. Should company X be allowed to refuse service to Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, etc.....?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:56:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Strict regulation/Laissez Faire is a means to an end. Only through establishing the end will the means be indisputably obvious.

In my opinion, so long as we value a fair and equal opportunity for all people and want to ensure that free enterprise does not bring destitution to minorities, there should be laws against that.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:00:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:51:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Should a private business have authority to wilfully and voluntarily discriminate against its consumers?

Ex. Should company X be allowed to refuse service to Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, etc.....?

I don't see why they shouldn't be able to refuse customers. It's their good/service, they can distribute/serve to whoever they wish.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:02:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:56:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
Strict regulation/Laissez Faire is a means to an end. Only through establishing the end will the means be indisputably obvious.

In my opinion, so long as we value a fair and equal opportunity for all people and want to ensure that free enterprise does not bring destitution to minorities, there should be laws against that.

Free enterprise is ultimately private property, similarly to your house. You have a choice of who you let into your house and if somebody unwanted comes into your house, then you can protect against it.

Business is private property. Business people should have a choice of whom they serve under their own property, similarly to your own house.

If you value property rights and freedom, then this position comes axiomatically.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:06:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:51:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Should a private business have authority to wilfully and voluntarily discriminate against its consumers?

Ex. Should company X be allowed to refuse service to Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, etc.....?

I won't rehash, I'll just refer you to my comments in Greyparrot's thread on the putative right to refuse service, http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:07:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:06:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:51:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Should a private business have authority to wilfully and voluntarily discriminate against its consumers?

Ex. Should company X be allowed to refuse service to Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, etc.....?

I won't rehash, I'll just refer you to my comments in Greyparrot's thread on the putative right to refuse service, http://www.debate.org...

You mean the paragraphs of socialist rhetoric which never have even one backed up fact?

I would love to read them.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:08:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:02:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:56:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
Strict regulation/Laissez Faire is a means to an end. Only through establishing the end will the means be indisputably obvious.

In my opinion, so long as we value a fair and equal opportunity for all people and want to ensure that free enterprise does not bring destitution to minorities, there should be laws against that.

Free enterprise is ultimately private property, similarly to your house. You have a choice of who you let into your house and if somebody unwanted comes into your house, then you can protect against it.

Business is private property. Business people should have a choice of whom they serve under their own property, similarly to your own house.

If you value property rights and freedom, then this position comes axiomatically.

except that one's home has no bearing on everyone else's lives whereas modern society is entirely dependent on the services and products that corporations provide. Because of this dependency a corporation simply cannot and does not have absolute authority over who the products are sold to.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:09:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:07:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:06:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:51:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Should a private business have authority to wilfully and voluntarily discriminate against its consumers?

Ex. Should company X be allowed to refuse service to Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, etc.....?

I won't rehash, I'll just refer you to my comments in Greyparrot's thread on the putative right to refuse service, http://www.debate.org...

You mean the paragraphs of socialist rhetoric which never have even one backed up fact?

I would love to read them.
-whisper- ...he's a communist
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:10:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes.

They own their product, they can choose who and what they want to sell it, or buy it from.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:11:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:09:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:07:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:06:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:51:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Should a private business have authority to wilfully and voluntarily discriminate against its consumers?

Ex. Should company X be allowed to refuse service to Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, etc.....?

I won't rehash, I'll just refer you to my comments in Greyparrot's thread on the putative right to refuse service, http://www.debate.org...

You mean the paragraphs of socialist rhetoric which never have even one backed up fact?

I would love to read them.
-whisper- ...he's a communist

Oh my, what a dreadful thing. If we only lived in a world in which everyone was a beautiful libertarian!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:12:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:08:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:02:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:56:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
Strict regulation/Laissez Faire is a means to an end. Only through establishing the end will the means be indisputably obvious.

In my opinion, so long as we value a fair and equal opportunity for all people and want to ensure that free enterprise does not bring destitution to minorities, there should be laws against that.

Free enterprise is ultimately private property, similarly to your house. You have a choice of who you let into your house and if somebody unwanted comes into your house, then you can protect against it.

Business is private property. Business people should have a choice of whom they serve under their own property, similarly to your own house.

If you value property rights and freedom, then this position comes axiomatically.

except that one's home has no bearing on everyone else's lives whereas modern society is entirely dependent on the services and products that corporations provide. Because of this dependency a corporation simply cannot and does not have absolute authority over who the products are sold to.

Not all corporations will refuse service. It will be non-sensical for the large multi-national corporations to discriminate because not only would it take massive amounts of resources to do this, but it would also lower profit.

This freedom would mostly apply to middle class businesses. If one refuses service based off of moral beliefs, society will not descend into anarchy because of a lack of resources. In fact, there will be very little ramifications.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:12:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:11:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:09:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:07:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:06:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:51:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Should a private business have authority to wilfully and voluntarily discriminate against its consumers?

Ex. Should company X be allowed to refuse service to Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, etc.....?

I won't rehash, I'll just refer you to my comments in Greyparrot's thread on the putative right to refuse service, http://www.debate.org...

You mean the paragraphs of socialist rhetoric which never have even one backed up fact?

I would love to read them.
-whisper- ...he's a communist

Oh my, what a dreadful thing. If we only lived in a world in which everyone was a beautiful libertarian!

oh no, I wasn't implying that it's a bad thing. I like appreciate the sentiment of Communists
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:14:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:12:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:08:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:02:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:56:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
Strict regulation/Laissez Faire is a means to an end. Only through establishing the end will the means be indisputably obvious.

In my opinion, so long as we value a fair and equal opportunity for all people and want to ensure that free enterprise does not bring destitution to minorities, there should be laws against that.

Free enterprise is ultimately private property, similarly to your house. You have a choice of who you let into your house and if somebody unwanted comes into your house, then you can protect against it.

Business is private property. Business people should have a choice of whom they serve under their own property, similarly to your own house.

If you value property rights and freedom, then this position comes axiomatically.

except that one's home has no bearing on everyone else's lives whereas modern society is entirely dependent on the services and products that corporations provide. Because of this dependency a corporation simply cannot and does not have absolute authority over who the products are sold to.

Not all corporations will refuse service. It will be non-sensical for the large multi-national corporations to discriminate because not only would it take massive amounts of resources to do this, but it would also lower profit.

This freedom would mostly apply to middle class businesses. If one refuses service based off of moral beliefs, society will not descend into anarchy because of a lack of resources. In fact, there will be very little ramifications.

That's like saying that theft should be legal because not everyone will steal...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:15:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:10:09 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yes.

They own their product, they can choose who and what they want to sell it, or buy it from.

+1
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:16:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:14:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:12:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:08:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:02:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:56:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
Strict regulation/Laissez Faire is a means to an end. Only through establishing the end will the means be indisputably obvious.

In my opinion, so long as we value a fair and equal opportunity for all people and want to ensure that free enterprise does not bring destitution to minorities, there should be laws against that.

Free enterprise is ultimately private property, similarly to your house. You have a choice of who you let into your house and if somebody unwanted comes into your house, then you can protect against it.

Business is private property. Business people should have a choice of whom they serve under their own property, similarly to your own house.

If you value property rights and freedom, then this position comes axiomatically.

except that one's home has no bearing on everyone else's lives whereas modern society is entirely dependent on the services and products that corporations provide. Because of this dependency a corporation simply cannot and does not have absolute authority over who the products are sold to.

Not all corporations will refuse service. It will be non-sensical for the large multi-national corporations to discriminate because not only would it take massive amounts of resources to do this, but it would also lower profit.

This freedom would mostly apply to middle class businesses. If one refuses service based off of moral beliefs, society will not descend into anarchy because of a lack of resources. In fact, there will be very little ramifications.

That's like saying that theft should be legal because not everyone will steal...

Except that theft directly infringes on somebody's rights while denying service does not.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:17:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:12:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:11:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:09:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:07:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:06:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:51:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Should a private business have authority to wilfully and voluntarily discriminate against its consumers?

Ex. Should company X be allowed to refuse service to Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, etc.....?

I won't rehash, I'll just refer you to my comments in Greyparrot's thread on the putative right to refuse service, http://www.debate.org...

You mean the paragraphs of socialist rhetoric which never have even one backed up fact?

I would love to read them.
-whisper- ...he's a communist

Oh my, what a dreadful thing. If we only lived in a world in which everyone was a beautiful libertarian!

oh no, I wasn't implying that it's a bad thing. I like appreciate the sentiment of Communists

Thank you.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:17:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:15:55 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:10:09 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yes.

They own their product, they can choose who and what they want to sell it, or buy it from.

+1

whoa, whoa, whoa! What kind Liberal are you?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:18:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:15:55 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:10:09 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yes.

They own their product, they can choose who and what they want to sell it, or buy it from.

+1

You agree with this viewpoint?

That's peculiar. I always imagined you as a leftist "EQUALITY FOR ALL" type person.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:19:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:51:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Should a private business have authority to wilfully and voluntarily discriminate against its consumers?

Ex. Should company X be allowed to refuse service to Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, etc.....?

That would be a bad business choice
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:19:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:16:25 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Except that theft directly infringes on somebody's rights while denying service does not.

except that we illegalize theft on the basis that it's morally reprehensible and damaging to the qualities our society values...Private discrimination likewise - therefore it should likewise be illegalized.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:20:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:19:23 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:51:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Should a private business have authority to wilfully and voluntarily discriminate against its consumers?

Ex. Should company X be allowed to refuse service to Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, etc.....?

That would be a bad business choice

Of course it would.

But should it be allowed?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:21:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:19:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:16:25 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Except that theft directly infringes on somebody's rights while denying service does not.

except that we illegalize theft on the basis that it's morally reprehensible and damaging to the qualities our society values...Private discrimination likewise - therefore it should likewise be illegalized.

People have a right to distribute their own products as they wish. To say that the freedom of free choice is "morally reprehensible" is absurd.

Not giving money to a homeless person is a form of discrimination against the poor. Should that be illegalized? After all, it is private discrimination.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:22:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:17:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:15:55 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:10:09 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yes.

They own their product, they can choose who and what they want to sell it, or buy it from.

+1

whoa, whoa, whoa! What kind Liberal are you?

I'm guessing one who does not believe in forcing people to do business, and allowing one to make the poor business choice to refuse to follow through with a sale, and offend customers with racism.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:30:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:20:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:19:23 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:51:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Should a private business have authority to wilfully and voluntarily discriminate against its consumers?

Ex. Should company X be allowed to refuse service to Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, etc.....?

That would be a bad business choice

Of course it would.

But should it be allowed?

Yes. They are shooting themselves in the foot, but it is their right to do so. It is wrong to force someone to do business.
For example, say your cousin could not afford an play station, so you offered to sell them your used PS2 for $15. Your cousin than turns down the offer because they wanted a PS3.
I than over hear this and offer you $15 for the PS2. You refuse my $15 because you only offered it to help out a relative. Would it be acceptable for me to demand that the government require, under penalty of law, that you sell me your PS2 for $15, because you offered it to your cousin for $15? or would that violate your liberty?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:31:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:17:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:15:55 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:10:09 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yes.

They own their product, they can choose who and what they want to sell it, or buy it from.

+1

whoa, whoa, whoa! What kind Liberal are you?

If they have a damn good reason to then why not?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:37:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:31:18 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:17:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:15:55 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:10:09 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yes.

They own their product, they can choose who and what they want to sell it, or buy it from.

+1

whoa, whoa, whoa! What kind Liberal are you?

If they have a damn good reason to then why not?

Property ownership isn't as simple as they make it seem. In nature, all resources are jointly owned by everyone until an individual mixes labor with it and converts it to private property. However, this conversion is only morally permissible if "enough and as good" is left for others (from the Lockean Proviso).

Since we live in a society where necessities even as basic as water are monopolized by corporations, it follows that they must, in turn, make the commodities accessible to everyone in some form, else relinquish ownership of it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:39:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:37:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:31:18 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:17:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:15:55 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:10:09 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yes.

They own their product, they can choose who and what they want to sell it, or buy it from.

+1

whoa, whoa, whoa! What kind Liberal are you?

If they have a damn good reason to then why not?

Property ownership isn't as simple as they make it seem. In nature, all resources are jointly owned by everyone until an individual mixes labor with it and converts it to private property. However, this conversion is only morally permissible if "enough and as good" is left for others (from the Lockean Proviso).

Since we live in a society where necessities even as basic as water are monopolized by corporations, it follows that they must, in turn, make the commodities accessible to everyone in some form, else relinquish ownership of it.

but companies have the right to refuse service right?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:45:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:39:08 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:37:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:31:18 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:17:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:15:55 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:10:09 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yes.

They own their product, they can choose who and what they want to sell it, or buy it from.

+1

whoa, whoa, whoa! What kind Liberal are you?

If they have a damn good reason to then why not?

Property ownership isn't as simple as they make it seem. In nature, all resources are jointly owned by everyone until an individual mixes labor with it and converts it to private property. However, this conversion is only morally permissible if "enough and as good" is left for others (from the Lockean Proviso).

Since we live in a society where necessities even as basic as water are monopolized by corporations, it follows that they must, in turn, make the commodities accessible to everyone in some form, else relinquish ownership of it.

but companies have the right to refuse service right?

That's exactly what I was arguing against - They don't. Also, I don't believe in rights. Where does this property right come from?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:55:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:45:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:39:08 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:37:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:31:18 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:17:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:15:55 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:10:09 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yes.

They own their product, they can choose who and what they want to sell it, or buy it from.

+1

whoa, whoa, whoa! What kind Liberal are you?

If they have a damn good reason to then why not?

Property ownership isn't as simple as they make it seem. In nature, all resources are jointly owned by everyone until an individual mixes labor with it and converts it to private property. However, this conversion is only morally permissible if "enough and as good" is left for others (from the Lockean Proviso).

Since we live in a society where necessities even as basic as water are monopolized by corporations, it follows that they must, in turn, make the commodities accessible to everyone in some form, else relinquish ownership of it.

but companies have the right to refuse service right?

That's exactly what I was arguing against - They don't. Also, I don't believe in rights. Where does this property right come from?

So being liberal means NOT believing in rights?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:10:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:55:29 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:45:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:39:08 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:37:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:31:18 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:17:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:15:55 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:10:09 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yes.

They own their product, they can choose who and what they want to sell it, or buy it from.

+1

whoa, whoa, whoa! What kind Liberal are you?

If they have a damn good reason to then why not?

Property ownership isn't as simple as they make it seem. In nature, all resources are jointly owned by everyone until an individual mixes labor with it and converts it to private property. However, this conversion is only morally permissible if "enough and as good" is left for others (from the Lockean Proviso).

Since we live in a society where necessities even as basic as water are monopolized by corporations, it follows that they must, in turn, make the commodities accessible to everyone in some form, else relinquish ownership of it.

but companies have the right to refuse service right?

That's exactly what I was arguing against - They don't. Also, I don't believe in rights. Where does this property right come from?

So being liberal means NOT believing in rights?

I'm not a good model of liberalism from the philosophical foundations. I don't think free will exists, and I don't think objective morality is true. But I justify my Liberalism on premises that I assume society values.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault