Does a business owner have a right to say, "Don't come back?"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Oct 11, 2012.

  1. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Posts like this make me laugh. Right, it's all human nature, but somehow you're immune to it. Obviously, that's the best explanation: that you're somehow this mentally-superior specimen.

    The ego it must take to write what you just wrote is mind-boggling.

    Though I will say I disagree with the "Love it or leave it" response typically given to people who question American policy, and how those who were against the war in Iraq were called traitors by half the country. Clearly neither of these things have anything to do with the matter of believing that some government regulations are good. The former are the product of political rhetoric, whereas the latter are opinions based on evidence.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Not actually, I am by profession a research scientist. And so I'm used to critically evaluating the underlying assumptions. It's perfectly natural to me to apply the scientific methodological when appropriate. I understand the types of questions that can be answered and can not be answered.

    So, no, it has nothing at all to do with anything other than questioning the dogma is what I do for a living, what I enjoy doing, and how I'm inclined to approach a problem. I suck at music as an example. I don't know much about it. I mean, I really suck at hearing notes. I can probably change a 1980s motor, but not a new car motor. Probably not.

    Clearer?



    You make a lot of unfounded assumptions. You assume people can't plan long-term. That's just not true. People plan long term when they buy a house, when they decide on their careers, etc... Your example of McDonald's was way off the mark. McDonald's has stellar performance and quality control for what they serve. Your example of Jack in the Box is an example of how the present system failed. But, that's not really the point. The point is private corporations can do the exact same thing as the FDA and they will do it much better, more efficiently and cheaper. The free market would do a much better job at regulating food safety.

    But, let's say YOU want the FDA. OK, then you pay for it. See how simple that was? Let me pay for food that I want, and you go on and pay for FDA inspected food. Deal? Or is there some reason you need to intrude in my food choice now as well? Let me guess, god and country. Or some other post-hoc rational why I have to pay for your desire to want the FDA inspect your food.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I'm talking about morality. Morality is not only the way we treat others, but the way we treat ourselves. Morality is at root a belief system which manifests in our behavior. Attempts to legislate morality often--perhaps usually--succeed only in changing our behavior, but nor our beliefs.

    I think that the people who comprise the government know this, if not consciously. Just as I'm sure they know that no one has stopped liking the effects of recreational drugs just because they're now more expensive and more difficult to obtain, I'm sure that 50 years ago they knew that no Rednecks stopped hating Afro-Americans just because they could no longer legally lynch them or even keep them out of their children's schools.

    What they hope is that everyone will see the new civilization that is eventually created by these changes, have an epiphany, and "realize" that it's so much better this way that we must have all been dunces to think otherwise.

    What really happens is that children grow up in this great new civilization, having no experience with the horrible old civilization. They adapt to it because adapting is what childhood is all about. So a generation or two of American children have grown up in a society in which racial discrimination is at least regarded as evil, and at best unknown except for that one cranky old guy who lives on the corner.

    But what's the down side? We've all become accustomed to the government getting into our business, telling us (in essence even though it's not spelled out) who we can like and dislike, who we can choose as neighbors and employees, etc. It has set a terrible precedent.

    Nonetheless all of us old hippies are happy with the tradeoff. I couldn't stand the old America. This new one... well all I do now is complain about it. I can stand it.

    You can tell the old hippies because we're gonna vote for Obama again even though he's competing with Backward Baby Bush for the title of Worst President Since The Figureheads Of The Late 19th Century. We're so proud of ourselves for finally hiring the first minority president, that we just can't bring ourselves to fire him.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    There are exactly zero pieces of legislation that do not "attempt to legislate morality." There has never been a single law anywhere in human history enacted - or even proposed - for any other purpose than to enshrine some piece of morality as meriting the backing of state power. That is what laws are. Pick any law you like and dig down into its motivations, and you will encounter a moral imperative.

    The relevant point here is that laws only tend to work out if the population subject to them already generally agrees with the moral principle(s) in question (and that the law is an effective, proportional means to advancing that principle). If by "legislating morality," you mean attempting to impose moral positions that are not, in fact, already widely held by the governed populace, that is when you get into difficulties. But your phrasing is substantially more general than that, and appears to imply that your standard, regular law is not an attempt to enshrine moral imperatives into the law. That latter implication is preposterous.

    The relevant thing that the lawmakers know about drug prohibition laws, is that the voters will generally support them (this is starting to change with marijuana in some places, but that's the exception that proves the rule here). None of that other stuff figures into their calculus. It's only when such considerations actually make a dent in whether voters support the laws, that any of it becomes relevant to the considerations of the government.

    No, they just want to get re-elected. It's a mistake to imagine that these guys think in terms of grand social engineering projects from the top down. If they thought they could win an election by running against the vision of society and government in question, they'd do so in a heartbeat - indeed, such has been the centerpiece of GOP national electoral strategy ever since the Civil Rights Era.
     
  8. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I'd say more laws on the books are rooted in money than in morality.
     
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    False dichotomy.
     
  10. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I'm going to look that up. And if it's an insult, I'm going to think up the most disparaging remarks heard in the English language and aim them at your mother.

    Ok, true, it is a bit... But money is a pretty heavy motive for many of the laws out there. While one might point out road safety, for example, a large chunk of the citations written are actually a source of revenue for most cities. This can be observed by studied towns and cities across the US and watching how citations given rise in number alongside rising deficit for a city (Which of course helps to alleviate that rising deficit.)
     
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    The need to raise revenue to fund the local government is itself a moral imperative.

    I agree that decisions are not always about strict moral considerations exclusively of the subject that the law purports to address. But the countervailing motivations are themselves also moral imperatives.

    Money is simply the language that political actors use to express their moral preferences, in that sense.
     
  12. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I find this side discussion ironic- a religious person may say, "The love of money is the root of all evil."
    So, for the want of money- impose morality. Interesting.

    I do see your points and I agree with them every bit. I'm not above being facetious, however.

    So, government can impose fines on people. In itself, that encourages a certain morality as it fattens the purse of the city.
    Maybe business should fine customers that behave badly in stores.
    Fatten the purse and encourage good behavior from customers. So if a Bigot goes in Macy's they pay $300 more than I would.

    Of course, I'd be fined for other disruptions...

    And banned from Victoria's Secret.
     
  13. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    So NOW I know why you really won't go in there with me.:scratchin:
     
  14. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Look I don't know what the big deal is...

    Buncha prudes...


    They act like they've never seen a man try on ladies underwear before. And I was totally decent the whole time since I didn't need to change or anything.

    Just popped them on my head.



    (Except in San Francisco, I'm honorary store manager.)
     
  15. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I was going to respond to Fraggle's post, but I can't do any better than this:

    I'll just endorse this and move on.
     
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Yes, since the two parties changed sides. Today the Republican party membership is 95% white and their stronghold is the South. The party that freed the slaves!
     
  17. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Not just the party that freed the slaves - the party that was founded to free the slaves. The (erstwhile) "Party of Lincoln" now seems dedicated to making the Emancipator roll over in his grave.

    The other irony being that the Grand Old Party is the younger of the two parties by nearly a century.

    There's probably some general axiom about politics to be found here, about how a party taking a moral stand leads, over a few generations, to a situation in which they have more to gain politically from selling out the new order they created rather than defend it.
     
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I watched the change occur and I still don't understand it. It was Eisenhower, a Republican, who brought in the National Guard to integrate the Arkansas schools. But less than a decade later it was Johnson, a Democrat, who spearheaded the Civil Rights Act.
     
  19. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    The agency was all on the D side. Their Jim Crow component had ceased to sit well with other parts of the coalition, they saw which way the wind was blowing on the Civil Rights issue, and so they made a strategic decision to alienate the South in favor of improved national prestige and internal cohesion. By doing that, they left a big pile of chips on the table that the GOP couldn't resist snatching up - and which proved to be too much for them to digest. It has by now eaten away the former establishment core, leaving the party a mangled collection of religious nuts, racists, anti-tax zealots and a slice of craven plutocrats who think they can ride the whole thing to a new aristocracy. And so the party created by Lincoln - one of the most venerated American politicians ever amongst the black populace - has become a total anathema to blacks.

    That calculus made electoral sense for the GOP for quite a while - the south has a lot more electoral votes than black America can deliver - but between demographics and the GOP's resultant alienation of all minorities, it's starting to bite them in the ass. For example, they've now managed to turn New Mexico - a heavily Catholic, dispositionally conservative state - solidly blue, by poking Hispanics in the eye every chance they get.

    But had the Democrats not taken a big leap and left the South looking for a new patron, I don't think the GOP would have so realigned.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,848
    We tried that for hundreds of years. Didn't work. Especially fell apart when long distance transport and industrial processing destroyed accountability at the production end.

    The problem is the common one - the existence of a functioning market requires sufficient information on both sides and the ability of either side to walk away from the deal.

    Examples: trans fats. labeling of allergens (or anything else). rbgh milk.

    Or marketing. It's standard marketing to push and claim exactly what the product least possesses (an artificial consumable pushed as "the real thing", etc) - and in politics, the marketing effort can become the substance, the product.
     
  21. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I beg to differ - it ushered in the modern era.

    I'm not sure where you example of trans-fats is going?

    As a customer you can choose to ONLY purchase food that has a been FDA approved. That's your choice. Just so long as the funding for the FDA is through a private means - then I fail to see why it's going to be anything other than more efficient. Not to mention the internet has changed the way information in shared. Inter-connectivity opens up new possibilities. For example,IF you want cheap rates on your health insurance from company A then you'll buy most of your food from companies that are healthy and company A will have a monetary incentive to make sure those foods really ARE good for you as they'll lose money if they're not by having higher medical costs. IF you think the health of Americans has been any better with the FDA - you might want to take a look around you. Also, with cheap 'free' insurance there is no intensive to remain healthy. I've actually heard of patients telling their health care providers to go stuff themselves (in Australia) - they were NOT going to change their life style and they WERE going to come in and be fixed.

    That's true.

    Also, you people keep referring to the free-market from a hundred years ago as if that's going to be the same market today? That makes no sense. We have smart phones that can make nearly free calls to anywhere in the world. That said, life was way better in the free-markets of the USA compared to other regulated markets. Which is why we surged past them like they were standing still. Of course, the market is the people. We have our own culture and way of doing things. It's just that when it's 'free' and not skewed by the government, it functions best to meet our direct needs and desires. Our 'dollars' are our direct vote on what we do and do not want.

    Of course, we'll NEVER have a free market until we do away with the USD and income tax. It's good to see Ben is going his part in bringing that ugly chapter to a close. Let's hope he succeeds

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!







    Lastly, I find it interesting I posted NOBEL PRIZING WINNING mathematical research that definitively proves the bigot will go out of business in a free-market - yet, you chose the police state. That says something about people. So, it really doesn't matter if it's proven that a free voluntary monetary system gets rid of bigotry? You people don't care. All these years of demagoging the public has finally did it. It actually convinced most people they really would be better off NOT being free and having personal liberty but instead being ruled, trying to steal from their neighbors, being petty and jealous of 'the rich'. Most Americans just do not want to live freely and prosperously because then they'd have to face the real world. What they instead want is to live in the delusion that the government is looking out for them. IOWs - they just want to be ruled. And, so you are. That's a fact. I known plenty of people who work in government - your welbeing is the last of their concerns.

    Welcome to all of Human History.



    --
    Not to interject a Romney remark, I heard that turd saying 'China's a currency manipulator'. HAAA!!! That's some funny shit. So, he's going to 'help' us by forcing China to raise the value of their money. Double Ha!!! Bernanke has been doing this since QE3. It was made clear that our inflation will be exported until the BRIC nations relent. Well well well, that will be interesting indeed. We'll call it the Walmart Tax. Soon you won't have to worry about buying all that cheaply made Chinese TVs, appliances, and gadgets. Of course, they won't be made in the USA either - you just won't have to worry about buying them yourself. That's when your life is really going to be much much better. Pffffff.... I look forward to the day

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The demagoguery will be interesting. And there will be the Cows all lined up in neat little rows, each side led by the nose, red on one side, blue on the other, all marching off to the big red barn. We're going to give those 'rich peoples' a peace of our minds they'll moo.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2012
  22. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Well said. Yes, a free market would benefit all. Agreed.
     
  23. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    If you knew of a place where there was absolutely a free market, no income tax, no insurance requirements, etc... would you go? would you really? because I know of such a place.
     

Share This Page