If you disagree with this definition, feel free to provide me with your alternative.Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.
Your fictitious Louisiana Muslim family would certainly have other options than the Desert Storm vet owned grocery store but it's your fictitious story so let's assume they don't. Would the result on this Muslim family be any different if instead of not serving Muslims he moved his only game in town to a more lucrative spot or retired? Is it safe to say you believe the vet should be forced to work against his will until someone else comes along to provide for this Muslim family?
If not, why?
I believe it would send the wrong message and divide the races unnecessarily to repeal it now. It would only create hatred and mistrust, not something we want in this day and age. I agree though with the Libertarian theory though. If there was a restaurant that was discriminatory, they would lose my business for sure. While there is no way for sure to prove that this will be so for everybody, business is business and I think we are far enough clear from those darker times in American history to worry to much about deep racism.
Run your own nation, play Cybernations."Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
- Mark Twain
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes