• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Its ok for a business owner to refuse to do business with...

I support business refusal to do business with:

  • Total voters
    38
Goldenboy219 said:
The fact that the firms objective is maximum profits has zero meaning to you.
Click to expand...

No, not zero meaning. Zero relevance to the discussion of property rights.

The relevance it DOES have is with regard to the populace forcing a business out by denying them the profits they want. But profit motive has zero relevance when discussing the property rights of an individual who owns a business.

Continuing to repeat your "profit" mantra isn't going to confuse us into thinking it has any relevance. ;)
 
Goldenboy219 said:
In the short run, yes. In the long run markets rule. Which is why we have witnessed both Korean and Japanese convergence even though they have far more barriers to entry in regards to the entrepreneurial spirit.
Click to expand...
Well then we are calling growth subjective, while the Korean market is growing the Japanese market is in it's second stagnation in as many as 15 years, the Yen is still taking a beating.

Again, I wish it was as easy as it sounds to say let's just regulate that x group is protected without damaging basic personal rights, it's not.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Well then we are calling growth subjective, while the Korean market is growing the Japanese market is in it's second stagnation in as many as 15 years, the Yen is still taking a beating.

Again, I wish it was as easy as it sounds to say let's just regulate that x group is protected without damaging basic personal rights, it's not.
Click to expand...

The question i have been asking is: what basic personal rights have been damaged? The right for a firm to operate in a bigoted manner? If that is what you are talking about, than i can really care less about their damaged rights. There are far more important things to worry about than ones ability to open a bigoted enterprise.

But that is just my opinion.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Attack? I said you claimed me me me mine mine mine. That is not an attack, only pointing out the reality of the situation. We have nothing to discuss because you view this discussion to be only in regards to property rights.

The fact that the firms objective is maximum profits has zero meaning to you.

There is really nothing to discuss with you because you have made your point and argument clear: Its all or nothing.
Click to expand...

No, I pointed out it wasn't me me me, and all you could do is call the argument childish comments from the peanut gallery. You remember that?

The fact is that most businesses operate to make money, but the individuals who own businesses may have different priorities. It's not my place to say that a company has to exist to make money. It's how they are sustained, which is how you really affect situations like discriminatory business, but it's not a law. The owner of the business can do anything they want, even make an unrealistic business style. If they don't want to serve certain folk, that's up to them. It's not my place to tell them no. It's their property, their business; they can do with it as they like. If they want to take a hit to profit by excluding certain people; then so be it. If we don't like it we can not go to that business, we can protest that business, we can affect the customer base of that business. But to use the force of government against individual's rights and liberties whom have not encroached upon the rights of others is not warranted.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The question i have been asking is: what basic personal rights have been damaged? The right for a firm to operate in a bigoted manner? If that is what you are talking about, than i can really care less about their damaged rights.
Click to expand...
Well, frankly, the right to private property IS a right to be a bigot, your property, your rules.
There are far more important things to worry about than ones ability to open a bigoted enterprise.
Click to expand...
I assert that they are all part of the same problem. An overreaching government creates the regulations that caused every big problem we suffer.
Click to expand...
 
rivrrat said:
No, not zero meaning. Zero relevance to the discussion of property rights.

The relevance it DOES have is with regard to the populace forcing a business out by denying them the profits they want. But profit motive has zero relevance when discussing the property rights of an individual who owns a business.

Continuing to repeat your "profit" mantra isn't going to confuse us into thinking it has any relevance. ;)
Click to expand...

If what you consider "violation of their property rights" does not in any way effect their bottom line, then why does it matter? The premise behind firm creation is not the ability to "do what i want".

When the law states that anyone, at any time can enter your establishment and you are forced to serve them regardless of their impeding of your bottom line (profit move), i will definitely agree with you.

I am a multiple business owner, and can care less if it is illegal to discriminate. When various regulations and the sort begins to effect my bottom line, i will continue to keep my ideology from impeding my priorities.

If it does not effect firm profitability both long and short run, then your premise on "property rights" is in fact arbitrary.
 
Ikari said:
No, I pointed out it wasn't me me me, and all you could do is call the argument childish comments from the peanut gallery. You remember that?

The fact is that most businesses operate to make money, but the individuals who own businesses may have different priorities. It's not my place to say that a company has to exist to make money. It's how they are sustained, which is how you really affect situations like discriminatory business, but it's not a law. The owner of the business can do anything they want, even make an unrealistic business style. If they don't want to serve certain folk, that's up to them. It's not my place to tell them no. It's their property, their business; they can do with it as they like. If they want to take a hit to profit by excluding certain people; then so be it. If we don't like it we can not go to that business, we can protest that business, we can affect the customer base of that business. But to use the force of government against individual's rights and liberties whom have not encroached upon the rights of others is not warranted.
Click to expand...

If it does not effect their bottom line (and i am positive that anti-discrimination legislation does not in any way), your premise is arbitrary. Maybe that is important to you. To me, i like making money and tend not to sweat the small stuff.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
If what you consider "violation of their property rights" does not in any way effect their bottom line, then why does it matter?
Click to expand...

It's not proper government control. The government can't just say "oh well, it doesn't affect Y so we can do whatever we want!". The government is a restricted entity which posses duty, privilege, and power by behest of the People. It does not have rights. Individuals have rights. The individual can say "Oh well, what I am doing doesn't affect the rights of others, so I can do whatever I want!". That's valid as the individual possesses rights. So if someone wants to make a business which, for instance, is white only; they should be more than free to do so. They're the one's paying the money for the land, for the business, for the taxes. Not me, not government. They can set their rules. And if it's unsustainable, then the business goes under. It's not the government's job to ensure success of business, that's up to the individual who owns the business.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Well, frankly, the right to private property IS a right to be a bigot, your property, your rules.
Click to expand...

But most businesses are "open to the public". It is not as though these types of regulations require you to open your home homosexuals if you are against it.

I assert that they are all part of the same problem. An overreaching government creates the regulations that caused every big problem we suffer.
Click to expand...

Care to be specific?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
If what you consider "violation of their property rights" does not in any way effect their bottom line, then why does it matter? The premise behind firm creation is not the ability to "do what i want".

When the law states that anyone, at any time can enter your establishment and you are forced to serve them regardless of their impeding of your bottom line (profit move), i will definitely agree with you.

I am a multiple business owner, and can care less if it is illegal to discriminate. When various regulations and the sort begins to effect my bottom line, i will continue to keep my ideology from impeding my priorities.

If it does not effect firm profitability both long and short run, then your premise on "property rights" is in fact arbitrary.
Click to expand...

Seriously, how many times do you have to be told by multiple people here that in the context of this discussion regarding personal property rights, the profit of a business on that property is irrelevant.

If I do not have a business on my property, I can discriminate against any person for any reason. I do not have to allow anyone, including law enforcement, onto my property unless they have a warrant and/or just cause. I can discriminate against *anyone*.

Why should someone lose that personal property right just because they open a business?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
But most businesses are "open to the public". It is not as though these types of regulations require you to open your home homosexuals if you are against it.
Click to expand...
We aren't differentiating between home and business on this side though, we are talking about legally owned property.



Care to be specific?
Click to expand...
I don't think this site has enough bandwidth. Many Sec regulations go to far, the fed has many oppressive regulations, the I.R.S. is a joke, Dept. of HHS(should be states only), the F.C.C. is to big, Fannie/Freddie(do I really have to explain it?), etc. etc.
 
Ikari said:
It's not proper government control. The government can't just say "oh well, it doesn't affect Y so we can do whatever we want!". The government is a restricted entity which posses duty, privilege, and power by behest of the People. It does not have rights. Individuals have rights. The individual can say "Oh well, what I am doing doesn't affect the rights of others, so I can do whatever I want!". That's valid as the individual possesses rights. So if someone wants to make a business which, for instance, is white only; they should be more than free to do so. They're the one's paying the money for the land, for the business, for the taxes. Not me, not government. They can set their rules. And if it's unsustainable, then the business goes under. It's not the government's job to ensure success of business, that's up to the individual who owns the business.
Click to expand...

Consumers have rights as well. When you open your doors in an attempt to pull profit, you are inviting in all sorts of issues. The notion that the market will police itself is quite incorrect. In the LONG RUN all economic profits = zero. Like i said before, hate breeds hate, and that is something that will in fact impede long run profitability (not to mention the short run). Until you operate your own business, with your own capital, time and money, you really will not understand. Discrimination has zero importance in the discussion of business unless of course it effects your profitability. Until you can show how such regulation hits the bottom line, your opinion of the matter is arbitrary.

There is the notion of positive rights. The fact that many people who claim to be pro freedom are so obsessed with negative rights is what pushes them into the fringe. I am in business to make money. I am not in business to exercise my negative rights in any manner i see fit. When you enter this realm, the acceptance of positive rights will begin to have a "positive" impact on your profitability.
 
If the government knows the discrimination in businesses is going on and not only allows it but funds itself from the taxes collected, the government is an accomplice. So no. It is not 'okay'.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I don't think this site has enough bandwidth. Many Sec regulations go to far, the fed has many oppressive regulations, the I.R.S. is a joke, Dept. of HHS(should be states only), the F.C.C. is to big, Fannie/Freddie(do I really have to explain it?), etc. etc.
Click to expand...

I understand and agree with much of this. However, this specific legislation does not carry with it the degree of governmental failure as those listed above. If anything, it improves the business atmosphere for both consumers and producers.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Consumers have rights as well.
Click to expand...
Not so fast, those were created legally and only a few decades ago, the same logic that created those "consumer rights" also created environmental legislation(the price of vehicles shot up about 10% within a short period of time), and one of the fastest regulatory growth periods in this country's history. So again, it shows the reasons why we aren't in a rush to empower government to regulate at will, arbitrarily, and without inarguable reasons.
When you open your doors in an attempt to pull profit, you are inviting in all sorts of issues. The notion that the market will police itself is quite incorrect.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The Chevy Corsair, Ford Pinto, etc. terrible vehicles that went sour with the public quickly, the car lines died in short periods of time, Denny's is still kissing ass after their racial issues in the nineties, Married With Children almost got taken off of the air by one uptight housewife despite it's ratings because she attacked their sponsors. There are millions of real world examples of the market working.
There is the notion of positive rights. The fact that many people who claim to be pro freedom are so obsessed with negative rights is what pushes them into the fringe.
Click to expand...
I don't subscribe to positive rights theory, and the founding fathers writings covered it along with the constitution. If the government wasn't given a power, it was intentional, if the power isn't listed, the government doesn't have it, however all rights are not listed, they extend to what the government cannot legally do.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I understand and agree with much of this. However, this specific legislation does not carry with it the degree of governmental failure as those listed above. If anything, it improves the business atmosphere for both consumers and producers.
Click to expand...
I agree, however the principle behind all regulation has a core.
 
Hatuey said:
If the government knows the discrimination in businesses is going on and not only allows it but funds itself from the taxes collected, the government is an accomplice. So no. It is not 'okay'.
Click to expand...
Right, you already argued that without any applicable logic and based on completely emotion based rhetoric. Got anything else?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Consumers have rights as well.
Click to expand...

Almost all of which come in through right of contract, an essential right of the People. In so much that the products being sold are accurately described, safety issues are clear, etc. But there is no right to be served by any particular business. Economics is not a zero sum game, there are way to create wealth. In the long run, it's not necessarily zero. The individual businesses are thus up to the individual business owners to decide how to run. And they can succeed or fail by their own practices and work. That's their business, that is their job; it is not my job to ensure they have business practices which will help the to succeed the best nor is it the government's job to do so. Especially when those laws and regulations will come at the cost of the rights of the property owner.
 
disneydude said:
The thread on the B&B has me intrigued. I'm curious how people would feel about other scenarios.

Please answer the following scenarios:

It would be OK for a business to refuse to do business with:
Click to expand...

I dont think the case in question is comparable to refusing to do business with black people. These people were not refused for what they were but what they were likely to do in the home of the owners. As absurd as I might find their objection they have a right to enforce it in their own home.
 
disneydude said:
The thread on the B&B has me intrigued. I'm curious how people would feel about other scenarios.

Please answer the following scenarios:

It would be OK for a business to refuse to do business with:
Click to expand...

LOL

poll fail. :D
 
LaMidRighter said:
I agree, however the principle behind all regulation has a core.
Click to expand...

Two regulating entities i deal with (and what seems daily :2razz: ) are OSHA and the EPA. At times they can be a real hassle but i do understand the premise behind them. About a year ago a kid who was working for me fell about 40 feet (from a man lift) and shattered his hip and pelvis. He tried to sue both me and the particular client (me for negligence, and the client for liability). I am really tight with an OSHA higher up, and he is well aware that i run a tight ship. Long story short, the kid did not attach his safety harness, leaned too far out the basket and fell on his hip. He tried to say that the equipment malfunctioned. But what he didn't know was that following the accident, OSHA did a little investigation and documented that no safety harness was in use, and there was no equipment failure. I never even had to go to court. Some regulatory bodies are a pain in the ass, but can be a real life saver when the unexpected happens.

As far as the EPA goes, many new companies attempt to dump their wastes (diluting agents, mixed paints, sand with a high iron oxide composition, oil, etc...) anywhere where people are not. I am not as concerned with the environment (although more recently i have become a bit more aware of what such practices can do) as i am with my compliance costs. It is about $150/ton to dispose of contaminated sand and i have to put a $5000 security deposit with the disposal company because it is less expensive to haul their container myself. The real expense is disposing more dangerous waste such as the leftovers of binary epoxy blends, xylene and MEK compounds, zinc based coatings, etc.... Disposal accounts to about 5%-7% of my total revenue. It pisses me off to no degree that i have to pay thousands of dollars a year in these costs, while other scab companies do what they can to avoid it. Without the EPA making their presence felt, such companies can easily underbid me and my more established competitors due to their lower costs to operate.

The market does not self correct in regards to this endeavor. Lower bids win, and some clients even attempt to get a lower price by "disposing" the waste themselves.

Not all regulation is bad regulation. It might be a pain in the ass at times, but without a doubt it is needed in my field.
 
Ikari said:
Almost all of which come in through right of contract, an essential right of the People. In so much that the products being sold are accurately described, safety issues are clear, etc. But there is no right to be served by any particular business. Economics is not a zero sum game, there are way to create wealth. In the long run, it's not necessarily zero. The individual businesses are thus up to the individual business owners to decide how to run. And they can succeed or fail by their own practices and work. That's their business, that is their job; it is not my job to ensure they have business practices which will help the to succeed the best nor is it the government's job to do so. Especially when those laws and regulations will come at the cost of the rights of the property owner.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the econ lesson:2wave: I needed it!
 
You know, if you're going to sit around and bitch about people not presenting serious arguments or debating in a productive manner; perhaps you should then follow your own advice.
 
Ikari said:
You know, if you're going to sit around and bitch about people not presenting serious arguments or debating in a productive manner; perhaps you should then follow your own advice.
Click to expand...

Would you have liked me to instead correct the inaccuracies? Of course wealth generation is not a zero sum game (i never said it was). However, in the long run all economic profits and rents go to zero (or as close to zero as they can be). Markets do not always self correct and we then have to deal with the externalities generated from market failure. Yes there are endless instances of government failure, but the "costs" are far more spread out in some regards.

Market failure is very much real. The externalities generated do at times need to be internalized via taxation, regulation, or a combination of the two. Sometimes they self correct short term. Most of the time they do not. I would much rather take my chances with less bigotry in business than have a religious expectation that the mess will clean itself up.

Of course, if you really do not like a law, nothing forces you to follow it. Sometimes i am late and need to speed. I can care less what the state thinks about what i put into my body. I like gambling on sports.

If you want to open a business and be a bigot about it. Go right ahead. I will still support legislation that makes some practices extremely difficult and punishes those who find it irresistible not to to be a bigoted asshole.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Right, you already argued that without any applicable logic and based on completely emotion based rhetoric. Got anything else?
Click to expand...

Care to show the emotional rhetoric? You can't. Thanks for trying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom