In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
But... but... but... free market! Invisible hand! They should be allowed to discriminate, because the free market will show us if this kind of practice should survive or not! If discriminatory businesses do well, then why should be deprive the community with tyranny?
On February 27 2014 11:38 SnipedSoul wrote: Businesses came out against the bill so the republicans who voted for it backpedaled like crazy. Even Fox News was talking about how bad it was.
The NFL and the NCAA even phoned in for this one.
Apparently the NFL did this once before (threaten to take away a Super Bowl) to, you guessed it, Arizona, back in the early 90's, when they refused to recognize MLK Day. They refused, and the NFL subsequently yanked the Super Bowl from them and gave it to Pasadena, CA.
God damn, what a horrifically ass-backwards state.
On February 27 2014 11:38 SnipedSoul wrote: Businesses came out against the bill so the republicans who voted for it backpedaled like crazy. Even Fox News was talking about how bad it was.
The NFL and the NCAA even phoned in for this one.
Apparently the NFL did this once before (threaten to take away a Super Bowl) to, you guessed it, Arizona, back in the early 90's, when they refused to recognize MLK Day. They refused, and the NFL subsequently yanked the Super Bowl from them and gave it to Pasadena, CA.
God damn, what a horrifically ass-backwards state.
Yep, John McCain himself was criticized for his initial support of NOT observing MLK Day in 2008.
And don't criticize the whole state. There are probably plenty of Arizonans on Team Liquid that are absolutely embarrassed that this bill even passed the House and Senate and had to be vetoed.
On February 27 2014 11:38 SnipedSoul wrote: Businesses came out against the bill so the republicans who voted for it backpedaled like crazy. Even Fox News was talking about how bad it was.
The NFL and the NCAA even phoned in for this one.
Apparently the NFL did this once before (threaten to take away a Super Bowl) to, you guessed it, Arizona, back in the early 90's, when they refused to recognize MLK Day. They refused, and the NFL subsequently yanked the Super Bowl from them and gave it to Pasadena, CA.
God damn, what a horrifically ass-backwards state.
Yep, John McCain himself was criticized for his initial support of NOT observing MLK Day in 2008.
And don't criticize the whole state. There are probably plenty of Arizonans on Team Liquid that are absolutely embarrassed that this bill even passed the House and Senate and had to be vetoed.
Criticizing Arizona for their consistent...problems... is no different than criticizing a country for anything (human rights violations, pollution, corruption, etc.). It doesn't mean you think that everyone from there is a horrible person.
Saw that Brewer vetoed the bill. Frustrated, but honestly, there are bigger fish to fry right now. I think there are more substantial issues to tackle, though what this represents is deeply important. I'm undoubtedly one of the tiny handful of TL'ers who's in the state but would have supported the bill. Brewer is reasonable, but I disagree with her conclusions.
"The bill is broadly-worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Lol? Why wasn't this said when the ACA was rammed through D.C.? But that's an aside....
The more I think about the consequences of non-discrimination laws, the more I realize it's about government control, because the strongest argument against this bill was that a lot of businesses require public licenses. Which means private businesses aren't really private at all; they're subject to public rules and regulations (ones that go beyond the respect of rights to life, liberty, and property, I mean; I am assuming that those are always protected). They're controlling what you can do as a businessperson, how you must operate, how you have to act towards customers. People can't perform business differently. In the end, you get a lack of that coveted "diversity" that the left tries to appear enamored with, because everyone acts and operates pretty much the same way, believes in the same worldview. Those who would dare enter the market differently than what the government "permits" them to do not take the plunge and make their business. As much as we all detest discrimination of practically any kind, there's no lawful reason to criminalize it if no liberties are infringed upon.
I see the slippery slope here; putting in my post of warning, but backing off from it.
Stratos, it's not as bad as you think. Just gotta make your own fun out here.
On February 27 2014 13:17 cLAN.Anax wrote: Saw that Brewer vetoed the bill. Frustrated, but honestly, there are bigger fish to fry right now. I think there are more substantial issues to tackle, though what this represents is deeply important. I'm undoubtedly one of the tiny handful of TL'ers who's in the state but would have supported the bill. Brewer is reasonable, but I disagree with her conclusions.
"The bill is broadly-worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Lol? Why wasn't this said when the ACA was rammed through D.C.? But that's an aside....
The more I think about the consequences of non-discrimination laws, the more I realize it's about government control, because the strongest argument against this bill was that a lot of businesses require public licenses. Which means private businesses aren't really private at all; they're subject to public rules and regulations (ones that go beyond the respect of rights to life, liberty, and property, I mean; I am assuming that those are always protected). They're controlling what you can do as a businessperson, how you must operate, how you have to act towards customers. People can't perform business differently. In the end, you get a lack of that coveted "diversity" that the left tries to appear enamored with, because everyone acts and operates pretty much the same way, believes in the same worldview. Those who would dare enter the market differently than what the government "permits" them to do not take the plunge and make their business. As much as we all detest discrimination of practically any kind, there's no lawful reason to criminalize it if no liberties are infringed upon.
I see the slippery slope here; putting in my post of warning, but backing off from it.
Stratos, it's not as bad as you think. Just gotta make your own fun out here.
The left doesn't value diversity because they like people. They really like a predictable uniformity... of starting circumstances, of success, and of the final situation you are in. How you operate, where you operate, who you can interact with, what you should think, etc. It's on display all the time. They say the right hates the poor, the blacks, the gays, the middle class, the union workers, and everyone else that counts as a special interest group (except business). Yet, every time you argue for increasing individual freedom, you are shot down because there is some group that you are said to oppose- not because you think they are inferior, but because you don't think that uniformity of circumstance is something to be sought as it's own goal. If you think people should have to do the hard work themselves, and that it's ok if some people are 1000x wealthier than the worker they employ, you are actually a bigot of some sort who for some unknowable reason hates said social class. They couldn't give two figs about actual diversity, but diversity based on the arbitrary distinctions they invent: wealth, class, and race. These categories are opposed to actual diversity- that of individuals that influences the lives of actual people who have actual goals, all of them unique.
Obviously people will disagree with this assessment- or at least my characterization of it. But it really is a difference in values- the uniformity of numerous "groups" or the diversity of individual people.
Have to give them credit for their always excellent use of language, however- they claim to encourage diversity and "lifting people up" all while classifying them in groups and pitting them against each other. It's a remarkable system they've established.
On February 27 2014 13:17 cLAN.Anax wrote: Saw that Brewer vetoed the bill. Frustrated, but honestly, there are bigger fish to fry right now. I think there are more substantial issues to tackle, though what this represents is deeply important. I'm undoubtedly one of the tiny handful of TL'ers who's in the state but would have supported the bill. Brewer is reasonable, but I disagree with her conclusions.
"The bill is broadly-worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Lol? Why wasn't this said when the ACA was rammed through D.C.? But that's an aside....
The more I think about the consequences of non-discrimination laws, the more I realize it's about government control, because the strongest argument against this bill was that a lot of businesses require public licenses. Which means private businesses aren't really private at all; they're subject to public rules and regulations (ones that go beyond the respect of rights to life, liberty, and property, I mean; I am assuming that those are always protected). They're controlling what you can do as a businessperson, how you must operate, how you have to act towards customers. People can't perform business differently. In the end, you get a lack of that coveted "diversity" that the left tries to appear enamored with, because everyone acts and operates pretty much the same way, believes in the same worldview. Those who would dare enter the market differently than what the government "permits" them to do not take the plunge and make their business. As much as we all detest discrimination of practically any kind, there's no lawful reason to criminalize it if no liberties are infringed upon.
I see the slippery slope here; putting in my post of warning, but backing off from it.
Stratos, it's not as bad as you think. Just gotta make your own fun out here.
The left doesn't value diversity because they like people. They really like a predictable uniformity... of starting circumstances, of success, and of the final situation you are in. How you operate, where you operate, who you can interact with, what you should think, etc. It's on display all the time. They say the right hates the poor, the blacks, the gays, the middle class, the union workers, and everyone else that counts as a special interest group (except business). Yet, every time you argue for increasing individual freedom, you are shot down because there is some group that you are said to oppose- not because you think they are inferior, but because you don't think that uniformity of circumstance is something to be sought as it's own goal. If you think people should have to do the hard work themselves, and that it's ok if some people are 1000x wealthier than the worker they employ, you are actually a bigot of some sort who for some unknowable reason hates said social class. They couldn't give two figs about actual diversity, but diversity based on the arbitrary distinctions they invent: wealth, class, and race. These categories are opposed to actual diversity- that of individuals that influences the lives of actual people who have actual goals, all of them unique.
Obviously people will disagree with this assessment- or at least my characterization of it. But it really is a difference in values- the uniformity of numerous "groups" or the diversity of individual people.
Have to give them credit for their always excellent use of language, however- they claim to encourage diversity and "lifting people up" all while classifying them in groups and pitting them against each other. It's a remarkable system they've established.
The laughable thing here is that your gross mischaracterization is based on the ridiculous notion that a person's wealth is the defining characteristic. You are responsible for the very same thing you accuse "the left" of doing, namely promoting diversity in name only. When life is viewed as a game of accumulation, I guess your characterization starts to take on a certain logic. But what kind of perverse weltanschauung is that? You mock uniformity of circumstances, but fail to miss that freedom, real freedom, is only possible when a person has ownership over his work product, access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education, and the freedom to truly achieve his own peculiar vision.
At least we can agree that freedom might be maximized in a post-scarcity society. But your notion of freedom in a world where the vast majority of humanity is sentenced to a life denied basic elements of freedom is a perversion.
On February 27 2014 13:17 cLAN.Anax wrote: Saw that Brewer vetoed the bill. Frustrated, but honestly, there are bigger fish to fry right now. I think there are more substantial issues to tackle, though what this represents is deeply important. I'm undoubtedly one of the tiny handful of TL'ers who's in the state but would have supported the bill. Brewer is reasonable, but I disagree with her conclusions.
"The bill is broadly-worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Lol? Why wasn't this said when the ACA was rammed through D.C.? But that's an aside....
The more I think about the consequences of non-discrimination laws, the more I realize it's about government control, because the strongest argument against this bill was that a lot of businesses require public licenses. Which means private businesses aren't really private at all; they're subject to public rules and regulations (ones that go beyond the respect of rights to life, liberty, and property, I mean; I am assuming that those are always protected). They're controlling what you can do as a businessperson, how you must operate, how you have to act towards customers. People can't perform business differently. In the end, you get a lack of that coveted "diversity" that the left tries to appear enamored with, because everyone acts and operates pretty much the same way, believes in the same worldview. Those who would dare enter the market differently than what the government "permits" them to do not take the plunge and make their business. As much as we all detest discrimination of practically any kind, there's no lawful reason to criminalize it if no liberties are infringed upon.
I see the slippery slope here; putting in my post of warning, but backing off from it.
Stratos, it's not as bad as you think. Just gotta make your own fun out here.
The left doesn't value diversity because they like people. They really like a predictable uniformity... of starting circumstances, of success, and of the final situation you are in. How you operate, where you operate, who you can interact with, what you should think, etc. It's on display all the time. They say the right hates the poor, the blacks, the gays, the middle class, the union workers, and everyone else that counts as a special interest group (except business). Yet, every time you argue for increasing individual freedom, you are shot down because there is some group that you are said to oppose- not because you think they are inferior, but because you don't think that uniformity of circumstance is something to be sought as it's own goal. If you think people should have to do the hard work themselves, and that it's ok if some people are 1000x wealthier than the worker they employ, you are actually a bigot of some sort who for some unknowable reason hates said social class. They couldn't give two figs about actual diversity, but diversity based on the arbitrary distinctions they invent: wealth, class, and race. These categories are opposed to actual diversity- that of individuals that influences the lives of actual people who have actual goals, all of them unique.
Obviously people will disagree with this assessment- or at least my characterization of it. But it really is a difference in values- the uniformity of numerous "groups" or the diversity of individual people.
Have to give them credit for their always excellent use of language, however- they claim to encourage diversity and "lifting people up" all while classifying them in groups and pitting them against each other. It's a remarkable system they've established.
The laughable thing here is that your gross mischaracterization is based on the ridiculous notion that a person's wealth is the defining characteristic of people. You are responsible for the very same thing you accuse "the left" of doing, namely promoting diversity in name only. When life is viewed as a game of accumulation, I guess your characterization starts to take on a certain logic. But what kind of perverse weltanschauung is that? You mock uniformity of circumstances, but fail to miss that freedom, real freedom, is only possible when a person has ownership over his work product, access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education, and the freedom to truly achieve his own peculiar vision.
At least we can agree that freedom might be maximized in a post-scarcity society. But your notion of freedom in a world where the vast majority of humanity is sentenced to a life denied basic elements of freedom is a perversion.
I never made that assertion, quite to the contrary. I said that true freedom is letting people pursue their own dreams, all of which are different. How is that narrowing it to wealth? It's the left that makes everything about skin color or how much money one person has compared to another. Class warfare is almost the exclusive domain of the left.
I think uniformity of circumstance is a laughable goal because A) it's impossible, and B) because it values certain things way too far above what a person wants to do. Like wealth. You want to be wealthy? Well screw you! Have higher taxes and the hatred of the hypocrites who get wealthy by making the rules.
You say freedom is "only possible when a person has ownership over his work product, access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education, and the freedom to truly achieve his own peculiar vision" yet you ignore the fact in order to bring about this hoped for utopia, you must curb freedoms. You have declared that seem freedoms are better than others. You want to be rich? You shouldn't want that (or at least, don't be too rich!"). But you want to be an artist? Well, someone should pay for that. You'd prefer some lukewarm society where you keep giving up freedom and ownership until your preferred equilibrium is established.
Nevermind the fact that a state powerful enough to enforce this "freedom" is actually a threat to the vision's very existence, since people are inherently corrupt.
I don't live in a fantasy land where everyone has a house and 50 acres, but I think the version of great difference in circumstance is vastly preferable (and just better) than a world where the state controls so much of your life and takes so much from you.
Like I said- in a purely hypothetical situation, where either system works perfectly, it's all about values.
Individual freedom doesn't necessarily make a population more free, in fact, it can do the opposite.
On February 27 2014 13:17 cLAN.Anax wrote: Saw that Brewer vetoed the bill. Frustrated, but honestly, there are bigger fish to fry right now. I think there are more substantial issues to tackle, though what this represents is deeply important. I'm undoubtedly one of the tiny handful of TL'ers who's in the state but would have supported the bill. Brewer is reasonable, but I disagree with her conclusions.
"The bill is broadly-worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Lol? Why wasn't this said when the ACA was rammed through D.C.? But that's an aside....
The more I think about the consequences of non-discrimination laws, the more I realize it's about government control, because the strongest argument against this bill was that a lot of businesses require public licenses. Which means private businesses aren't really private at all; they're subject to public rules and regulations (ones that go beyond the respect of rights to life, liberty, and property, I mean; I am assuming that those are always protected). They're controlling what you can do as a businessperson, how you must operate, how you have to act towards customers. People can't perform business differently. In the end, you get a lack of that coveted "diversity" that the left tries to appear enamored with, because everyone acts and operates pretty much the same way, believes in the same worldview. Those who would dare enter the market differently than what the government "permits" them to do not take the plunge and make their business. As much as we all detest discrimination of practically any kind, there's no lawful reason to criminalize it if no liberties are infringed upon.
I see the slippery slope here; putting in my post of warning, but backing off from it.
Stratos, it's not as bad as you think. Just gotta make your own fun out here.
The left doesn't value diversity because they like people. They really like a predictable uniformity... of starting circumstances, of success, and of the final situation you are in. How you operate, where you operate, who you can interact with, what you should think, etc. It's on display all the time. They say the right hates the poor, the blacks, the gays, the middle class, the union workers, and everyone else that counts as a special interest group (except business). Yet, every time you argue for increasing individual freedom, you are shot down because there is some group that you are said to oppose- not because you think they are inferior, but because you don't think that uniformity of circumstance is something to be sought as it's own goal. If you think people should have to do the hard work themselves, and that it's ok if some people are 1000x wealthier than the worker they employ, you are actually a bigot of some sort who for some unknowable reason hates said social class. They couldn't give two figs about actual diversity, but diversity based on the arbitrary distinctions they invent: wealth, class, and race. These categories are opposed to actual diversity- that of individuals that influences the lives of actual people who have actual goals, all of them unique.
Obviously people will disagree with this assessment- or at least my characterization of it. But it really is a difference in values- the uniformity of numerous "groups" or the diversity of individual people.
Have to give them credit for their always excellent use of language, however- they claim to encourage diversity and "lifting people up" all while classifying them in groups and pitting them against each other. It's a remarkable system they've established.
The laughable thing here is that your gross mischaracterization is based on the ridiculous notion that a person's wealth is the defining characteristic of people. You are responsible for the very same thing you accuse "the left" of doing, namely promoting diversity in name only. When life is viewed as a game of accumulation, I guess your characterization starts to take on a certain logic. But what kind of perverse weltanschauung is that? You mock uniformity of circumstances, but fail to miss that freedom, real freedom, is only possible when a person has ownership over his work product, access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education, and the freedom to truly achieve his own peculiar vision.
At least we can agree that freedom might be maximized in a post-scarcity society. But your notion of freedom in a world where the vast majority of humanity is sentenced to a life denied basic elements of freedom is a perversion.
I never made that assertion, quite to the contrary. I said that true freedom is letting people pursue their own dreams, all of which are different. How is that narrowing it to wealth? It's the left that makes everything about skin color or how much money one person has compared to another. Class warfare is almost the exclusive domain of the left.
I think uniformity of circumstance is a laughable goal because A) it's impossible, and B) because it values certain things way too far above what a person wants to do. Like wealth. You want to be wealthy? Well screw you! Have higher taxes and the hatred of the hypocrites who get wealthy by making the rules.
You say freedom is "only possible when a person has ownership over his work product, access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education, and the freedom to truly achieve his own peculiar vision" yet you ignore the fact in order to bring about this hoped for utopia, you must curb freedoms. You have declared that seem freedoms are better than others. You want to be rich? You shouldn't want that (or at least, don't be too rich!"). But you want to be an artist? Well, someone should pay for that. You'd prefer some lukewarm society where you keep giving up freedom and ownership until your preferred equilibrium is established.
Nevermind the fact that a state powerful enough to enforce this "freedom" is actually a threat to the vision's very existence, since people are inherently corrupt.
I don't live in a fantasy land where everyone has a house and 50 acres, but I think the version of great difference in circumstance is vastly preferable (and just better) than a world where the state controls so much of your life and takes so much from you.
You do make that assertion. What else could "equality of final situation" mean if not equality of wealth? You discount personal experiences, social relationships, and the like, by not figuring them into a final situation.
It's immoral to want to be wealthy. Just like it's immoral to want to kill someone. Being obscenely wealthy is a violent act. So yes, if you want to be wealthy, your freedom will have to be curtailed.
On February 27 2014 13:17 cLAN.Anax wrote: Saw that Brewer vetoed the bill. Frustrated, but honestly, there are bigger fish to fry right now. I think there are more substantial issues to tackle, though what this represents is deeply important. I'm undoubtedly one of the tiny handful of TL'ers who's in the state but would have supported the bill. Brewer is reasonable, but I disagree with her conclusions.
"The bill is broadly-worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Lol? Why wasn't this said when the ACA was rammed through D.C.? But that's an aside....
The more I think about the consequences of non-discrimination laws, the more I realize it's about government control, because the strongest argument against this bill was that a lot of businesses require public licenses. Which means private businesses aren't really private at all; they're subject to public rules and regulations (ones that go beyond the respect of rights to life, liberty, and property, I mean; I am assuming that those are always protected). They're controlling what you can do as a businessperson, how you must operate, how you have to act towards customers. People can't perform business differently. In the end, you get a lack of that coveted "diversity" that the left tries to appear enamored with, because everyone acts and operates pretty much the same way, believes in the same worldview. Those who would dare enter the market differently than what the government "permits" them to do not take the plunge and make their business. As much as we all detest discrimination of practically any kind, there's no lawful reason to criminalize it if no liberties are infringed upon.
I see the slippery slope here; putting in my post of warning, but backing off from it.
Stratos, it's not as bad as you think. Just gotta make your own fun out here.
The left doesn't value diversity because they like people. They really like a predictable uniformity... of starting circumstances, of success, and of the final situation you are in. How you operate, where you operate, who you can interact with, what you should think, etc. It's on display all the time. They say the right hates the poor, the blacks, the gays, the middle class, the union workers, and everyone else that counts as a special interest group (except business). Yet, every time you argue for increasing individual freedom, you are shot down because there is some group that you are said to oppose- not because you think they are inferior, but because you don't think that uniformity of circumstance is something to be sought as it's own goal. If you think people should have to do the hard work themselves, and that it's ok if some people are 1000x wealthier than the worker they employ, you are actually a bigot of some sort who for some unknowable reason hates said social class. They couldn't give two figs about actual diversity, but diversity based on the arbitrary distinctions they invent: wealth, class, and race. These categories are opposed to actual diversity- that of individuals that influences the lives of actual people who have actual goals, all of them unique.
Obviously people will disagree with this assessment- or at least my characterization of it. But it really is a difference in values- the uniformity of numerous "groups" or the diversity of individual people.
Have to give them credit for their always excellent use of language, however- they claim to encourage diversity and "lifting people up" all while classifying them in groups and pitting them against each other. It's a remarkable system they've established.
The laughable thing here is that your gross mischaracterization is based on the ridiculous notion that a person's wealth is the defining characteristic of people. You are responsible for the very same thing you accuse "the left" of doing, namely promoting diversity in name only. When life is viewed as a game of accumulation, I guess your characterization starts to take on a certain logic. But what kind of perverse weltanschauung is that? You mock uniformity of circumstances, but fail to miss that freedom, real freedom, is only possible when a person has ownership over his work product, access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education, and the freedom to truly achieve his own peculiar vision.
At least we can agree that freedom might be maximized in a post-scarcity society. But your notion of freedom in a world where the vast majority of humanity is sentenced to a life denied basic elements of freedom is a perversion.
I never made that assertion, quite to the contrary. I said that true freedom is letting people pursue their own dreams, all of which are different. How is that narrowing it to wealth? It's the left that makes everything about skin color or how much money one person has compared to another. Class warfare is almost the exclusive domain of the left.
I think uniformity of circumstance is a laughable goal because A) it's impossible, and B) because it values certain things way too far above what a person wants to do. Like wealth. You want to be wealthy? Well screw you! Have higher taxes and the hatred of the hypocrites who get wealthy by making the rules.
You say freedom is "only possible when a person has ownership over his work product, access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education, and the freedom to truly achieve his own peculiar vision" yet you ignore the fact in order to bring about this hoped for utopia, you must curb freedoms. You have declared that seem freedoms are better than others. You want to be rich? You shouldn't want that (or at least, don't be too rich!"). But you want to be an artist? Well, someone should pay for that. You'd prefer some lukewarm society where you keep giving up freedom and ownership until your preferred equilibrium is established.
Nevermind the fact that a state powerful enough to enforce this "freedom" is actually a threat to the vision's very existence, since people are inherently corrupt.
I don't live in a fantasy land where everyone has a house and 50 acres, but I think the version of great difference in circumstance is vastly preferable (and just better) than a world where the state controls so much of your life and takes so much from you.
You do make that assertion. What else could "equality of final situation" mean if not equality of wealth? You discount personal experiences, social relationships, and the like, by not figuring them into a final situation.
It's immoral to want to be wealthy. Just like it's immoral to want to kill someone. Being obscenely wealthy is a violent act. So yes, if you want to be wealthy, your freedom will have to be curtailed.
Read it again. I said the LEFT values equality of final situation. Not me, I said the opposite!
And why is it immoral? I disagree with the idea that for one to accumulate wealth, he must leave someone else worse off. If that were true, it would be harming your neighbor, and an argument could be made. That would make every one of us a serious offender, considering the wealth of the country we live in. If it were true, global wealth would not be growing. We would not be advancing. I don't want the world run by the rich (as they collude with government) but I don't want them poor.
I'm glad you said it so up front this time- you think being wealthy is bad. A purely moral judgement you wish to foist upon every other person on the planet. I will say this: "Do not murder" seems to be the most of a moral judgement humanity can make and agree on. Being rich? Not so much.
So you are for YOUR kind of freedom. What the hell type of freedom is that when one segment of society rules and steals from the others?
On February 27 2014 13:17 cLAN.Anax wrote: Saw that Brewer vetoed the bill. Frustrated, but honestly, there are bigger fish to fry right now. I think there are more substantial issues to tackle, though what this represents is deeply important. I'm undoubtedly one of the tiny handful of TL'ers who's in the state but would have supported the bill. Brewer is reasonable, but I disagree with her conclusions.
"The bill is broadly-worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Lol? Why wasn't this said when the ACA was rammed through D.C.? But that's an aside....
The more I think about the consequences of non-discrimination laws, the more I realize it's about government control, because the strongest argument against this bill was that a lot of businesses require public licenses. Which means private businesses aren't really private at all; they're subject to public rules and regulations (ones that go beyond the respect of rights to life, liberty, and property, I mean; I am assuming that those are always protected). They're controlling what you can do as a businessperson, how you must operate, how you have to act towards customers. People can't perform business differently. In the end, you get a lack of that coveted "diversity" that the left tries to appear enamored with, because everyone acts and operates pretty much the same way, believes in the same worldview. Those who would dare enter the market differently than what the government "permits" them to do not take the plunge and make their business. As much as we all detest discrimination of practically any kind, there's no lawful reason to criminalize it if no liberties are infringed upon.
I see the slippery slope here; putting in my post of warning, but backing off from it.
Stratos, it's not as bad as you think. Just gotta make your own fun out here.
The left doesn't value diversity because they like people. They really like a predictable uniformity... of starting circumstances, of success, and of the final situation you are in. How you operate, where you operate, who you can interact with, what you should think, etc. It's on display all the time. They say the right hates the poor, the blacks, the gays, the middle class, the union workers, and everyone else that counts as a special interest group (except business). Yet, every time you argue for increasing individual freedom, you are shot down because there is some group that you are said to oppose- not because you think they are inferior, but because you don't think that uniformity of circumstance is something to be sought as it's own goal. If you think people should have to do the hard work themselves, and that it's ok if some people are 1000x wealthier than the worker they employ, you are actually a bigot of some sort who for some unknowable reason hates said social class. They couldn't give two figs about actual diversity, but diversity based on the arbitrary distinctions they invent: wealth, class, and race. These categories are opposed to actual diversity- that of individuals that influences the lives of actual people who have actual goals, all of them unique.
Obviously people will disagree with this assessment- or at least my characterization of it. But it really is a difference in values- the uniformity of numerous "groups" or the diversity of individual people.
Have to give them credit for their always excellent use of language, however- they claim to encourage diversity and "lifting people up" all while classifying them in groups and pitting them against each other. It's a remarkable system they've established.
The laughable thing here is that your gross mischaracterization is based on the ridiculous notion that a person's wealth is the defining characteristic of people. You are responsible for the very same thing you accuse "the left" of doing, namely promoting diversity in name only. When life is viewed as a game of accumulation, I guess your characterization starts to take on a certain logic. But what kind of perverse weltanschauung is that? You mock uniformity of circumstances, but fail to miss that freedom, real freedom, is only possible when a person has ownership over his work product, access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education, and the freedom to truly achieve his own peculiar vision.
At least we can agree that freedom might be maximized in a post-scarcity society. But your notion of freedom in a world where the vast majority of humanity is sentenced to a life denied basic elements of freedom is a perversion.
I never made that assertion, quite to the contrary. I said that true freedom is letting people pursue their own dreams, all of which are different. How is that narrowing it to wealth? It's the left that makes everything about skin color or how much money one person has compared to another. Class warfare is almost the exclusive domain of the left.
I think uniformity of circumstance is a laughable goal because A) it's impossible, and B) because it values certain things way too far above what a person wants to do. Like wealth. You want to be wealthy? Well screw you! Have higher taxes and the hatred of the hypocrites who get wealthy by making the rules.
You say freedom is "only possible when a person has ownership over his work product, access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education, and the freedom to truly achieve his own peculiar vision" yet you ignore the fact in order to bring about this hoped for utopia, you must curb freedoms. You have declared that seem freedoms are better than others. You want to be rich? You shouldn't want that (or at least, don't be too rich!"). But you want to be an artist? Well, someone should pay for that. You'd prefer some lukewarm society where you keep giving up freedom and ownership until your preferred equilibrium is established.
Nevermind the fact that a state powerful enough to enforce this "freedom" is actually a threat to the vision's very existence, since people are inherently corrupt.
I don't live in a fantasy land where everyone has a house and 50 acres, but I think the version of great difference in circumstance is vastly preferable (and just better) than a world where the state controls so much of your life and takes so much from you.
You do make that assertion. What else could "equality of final situation" mean if not equality of wealth? You discount personal experiences, social relationships, and the like, by not figuring them into a final situation.
It's immoral to want to be wealthy. Just like it's immoral to want to kill someone. Being obscenely wealthy is a violent act. So yes, if you want to be wealthy, your freedom will have to be curtailed.
Read it again. I said the LEFT values equality of final situation. Not me, I said the opposite!
And why is it immoral? I disagree with the idea that for one to accumulate wealth, he must leave someone else worse off. If that were true, it would be harming your neighbor, and an argument could be made. That would make every one of us a serious offender, considering the wealth of the country we live in. If it were true, global wealth would not be growing. We would not be advancing. I don't want the world run by the rich (as they collude with government) but I don't want them poor.
I'm glad you said it so up front this time- you think being wealthy is bad. A purely moral judgement you wish to foist upon every other person on the planet. I will say this: "Do not murder" seems to be the most of a moral judgement humanity can make. Being rich? Not so much.
So you are for YOUR kind of freedom. What the hell type of freedom is that when one segment of society rules and steals from the others?
But you are the one judging here. You have pronounced that the left wants "equality of final situation," and that is the case because you view a more egalitarian view of resource distribution to be the end-all be-all in adjudging what the final situation is. This reflects your inherent bias to view life as a game, with money as your score. You did not say the opposite. You said you didn't want "equality of final situation," meaning you wanted the wealth people accumulated to be different.
Here's a news flash for you. There aren't enough resources for every person on the planet to live like the average American does. Americans are using far more than their fair share. It's funny that you dislike government's influence so much when the only thing propping up an egregiously immoral private property system is said government and its very large military.
You act as if you have a right to the things you were born into. You do not.
On February 27 2014 13:17 cLAN.Anax wrote: Saw that Brewer vetoed the bill. Frustrated, but honestly, there are bigger fish to fry right now. I think there are more substantial issues to tackle, though what this represents is deeply important. I'm undoubtedly one of the tiny handful of TL'ers who's in the state but would have supported the bill. Brewer is reasonable, but I disagree with her conclusions.
"The bill is broadly-worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Lol? Why wasn't this said when the ACA was rammed through D.C.? But that's an aside....
The more I think about the consequences of non-discrimination laws, the more I realize it's about government control, because the strongest argument against this bill was that a lot of businesses require public licenses. Which means private businesses aren't really private at all; they're subject to public rules and regulations (ones that go beyond the respect of rights to life, liberty, and property, I mean; I am assuming that those are always protected). They're controlling what you can do as a businessperson, how you must operate, how you have to act towards customers. People can't perform business differently. In the end, you get a lack of that coveted "diversity" that the left tries to appear enamored with, because everyone acts and operates pretty much the same way, believes in the same worldview. Those who would dare enter the market differently than what the government "permits" them to do not take the plunge and make their business. As much as we all detest discrimination of practically any kind, there's no lawful reason to criminalize it if no liberties are infringed upon.
I see the slippery slope here; putting in my post of warning, but backing off from it.
Stratos, it's not as bad as you think. Just gotta make your own fun out here.
The left doesn't value diversity because they like people. They really like a predictable uniformity... of starting circumstances, of success, and of the final situation you are in. How you operate, where you operate, who you can interact with, what you should think, etc. It's on display all the time. They say the right hates the poor, the blacks, the gays, the middle class, the union workers, and everyone else that counts as a special interest group (except business). Yet, every time you argue for increasing individual freedom, you are shot down because there is some group that you are said to oppose- not because you think they are inferior, but because you don't think that uniformity of circumstance is something to be sought as it's own goal. If you think people should have to do the hard work themselves, and that it's ok if some people are 1000x wealthier than the worker they employ, you are actually a bigot of some sort who for some unknowable reason hates said social class. They couldn't give two figs about actual diversity, but diversity based on the arbitrary distinctions they invent: wealth, class, and race. These categories are opposed to actual diversity- that of individuals that influences the lives of actual people who have actual goals, all of them unique.
Obviously people will disagree with this assessment- or at least my characterization of it. But it really is a difference in values- the uniformity of numerous "groups" or the diversity of individual people.
Have to give them credit for their always excellent use of language, however- they claim to encourage diversity and "lifting people up" all while classifying them in groups and pitting them against each other. It's a remarkable system they've established.
You should work on developing a more nuanced view of "the left."
People on "the right" claim to value equality of opportunity. The belief that in America, as long as you work hard, you will be a successful.
In the real world this is not the case. Many Americans don't get the opportunity to ever obtain a decent education. People struggle with hunger, and worry that they are a couple missed paychecks, or one significant health problem away, from becoming bankrupt or homeless.
People on "the right" don't give a shit about this. Such people deserve what they get, because if they had only tried their very best to succeed they would have been just fine.
Personally, I don't care about equality of outcome or predictable uniformity or whatever you want to call it. I think people should be given an equal chance to succeed, no matter where they are born or who their parents are, or whatever health conditions they develop. There are many ways to accomplish this that are consistent with "the right's" basic ideology, but they don't even acknowledge a problem. Oh well, at least "the right" is fighting for our right to be assholes to minorities.
See how annoying it is when someone lumps your sincerely held beliefs into a caricature? I think many people who consider themselves conservatives don't think like this, though perhaps you do. Either way, please stop referring to "the left" as if you have a clue about what real world liberals actually think.
Well, I for one think MLK day is a bunch if bullcrap. All he did was give speeches when in fact we should be thanking Hollywood for such classic films like Guess Whos Coming To Dinner and To Kill a Mockingbird, as well as TV shows like The Dick Van Dyke Show which was the first major primetime outlet to show Blacks with whites and act as if it was normal. MLKJ is a dick if he thinks all of the civil rights movement should be thankful to him alone.
On February 27 2014 13:17 cLAN.Anax wrote: Saw that Brewer vetoed the bill. Frustrated, but honestly, there are bigger fish to fry right now. I think there are more substantial issues to tackle, though what this represents is deeply important. I'm undoubtedly one of the tiny handful of TL'ers who's in the state but would have supported the bill. Brewer is reasonable, but I disagree with her conclusions.
"The bill is broadly-worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Lol? Why wasn't this said when the ACA was rammed through D.C.? But that's an aside....
The more I think about the consequences of non-discrimination laws, the more I realize it's about government control, because the strongest argument against this bill was that a lot of businesses require public licenses. Which means private businesses aren't really private at all; they're subject to public rules and regulations (ones that go beyond the respect of rights to life, liberty, and property, I mean; I am assuming that those are always protected). They're controlling what you can do as a businessperson, how you must operate, how you have to act towards customers. People can't perform business differently. In the end, you get a lack of that coveted "diversity" that the left tries to appear enamored with, because everyone acts and operates pretty much the same way, believes in the same worldview. Those who would dare enter the market differently than what the government "permits" them to do not take the plunge and make their business. As much as we all detest discrimination of practically any kind, there's no lawful reason to criminalize it if no liberties are infringed upon.
I see the slippery slope here; putting in my post of warning, but backing off from it.
Stratos, it's not as bad as you think. Just gotta make your own fun out here.
The left doesn't value diversity because they like people. They really like a predictable uniformity... of starting circumstances, of success, and of the final situation you are in. How you operate, where you operate, who you can interact with, what you should think, etc. It's on display all the time. They say the right hates the poor, the blacks, the gays, the middle class, the union workers, and everyone else that counts as a special interest group (except business). Yet, every time you argue for increasing individual freedom, you are shot down because there is some group that you are said to oppose- not because you think they are inferior, but because you don't think that uniformity of circumstance is something to be sought as it's own goal. If you think people should have to do the hard work themselves, and that it's ok if some people are 1000x wealthier than the worker they employ, you are actually a bigot of some sort who for some unknowable reason hates said social class. They couldn't give two figs about actual diversity, but diversity based on the arbitrary distinctions they invent: wealth, class, and race. These categories are opposed to actual diversity- that of individuals that influences the lives of actual people who have actual goals, all of them unique.
Obviously people will disagree with this assessment- or at least my characterization of it. But it really is a difference in values- the uniformity of numerous "groups" or the diversity of individual people.
Have to give them credit for their always excellent use of language, however- they claim to encourage diversity and "lifting people up" all while classifying them in groups and pitting them against each other. It's a remarkable system they've established.
The laughable thing here is that your gross mischaracterization is based on the ridiculous notion that a person's wealth is the defining characteristic of people. You are responsible for the very same thing you accuse "the left" of doing, namely promoting diversity in name only. When life is viewed as a game of accumulation, I guess your characterization starts to take on a certain logic. But what kind of perverse weltanschauung is that? You mock uniformity of circumstances, but fail to miss that freedom, real freedom, is only possible when a person has ownership over his work product, access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education, and the freedom to truly achieve his own peculiar vision.
At least we can agree that freedom might be maximized in a post-scarcity society. But your notion of freedom in a world where the vast majority of humanity is sentenced to a life denied basic elements of freedom is a perversion.
I never made that assertion, quite to the contrary. I said that true freedom is letting people pursue their own dreams, all of which are different. How is that narrowing it to wealth? It's the left that makes everything about skin color or how much money one person has compared to another. Class warfare is almost the exclusive domain of the left.
I think uniformity of circumstance is a laughable goal because A) it's impossible, and B) because it values certain things way too far above what a person wants to do. Like wealth. You want to be wealthy? Well screw you! Have higher taxes and the hatred of the hypocrites who get wealthy by making the rules.
You say freedom is "only possible when a person has ownership over his work product, access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education, and the freedom to truly achieve his own peculiar vision" yet you ignore the fact in order to bring about this hoped for utopia, you must curb freedoms. You have declared that seem freedoms are better than others. You want to be rich? You shouldn't want that (or at least, don't be too rich!"). But you want to be an artist? Well, someone should pay for that. You'd prefer some lukewarm society where you keep giving up freedom and ownership until your preferred equilibrium is established.
Nevermind the fact that a state powerful enough to enforce this "freedom" is actually a threat to the vision's very existence, since people are inherently corrupt.
I don't live in a fantasy land where everyone has a house and 50 acres, but I think the version of great difference in circumstance is vastly preferable (and just better) than a world where the state controls so much of your life and takes so much from you.
You do make that assertion. What else could "equality of final situation" mean if not equality of wealth? You discount personal experiences, social relationships, and the like, by not figuring them into a final situation.
It's immoral to want to be wealthy. Just like it's immoral to want to kill someone. Being obscenely wealthy is a violent act. So yes, if you want to be wealthy, your freedom will have to be curtailed.
Read it again. I said the LEFT values equality of final situation. Not me, I said the opposite!
And why is it immoral? I disagree with the idea that for one to accumulate wealth, he must leave someone else worse off. If that were true, it would be harming your neighbor, and an argument could be made. That would make every one of us a serious offender, considering the wealth of the country we live in. If it were true, global wealth would not be growing. We would not be advancing. I don't want the world run by the rich (as they collude with government) but I don't want them poor.
I'm glad you said it so up front this time- you think being wealthy is bad. A purely moral judgement you wish to foist upon every other person on the planet. I will say this: "Do not murder" seems to be the most of a moral judgement humanity can make. Being rich? Not so much.
So you are for YOUR kind of freedom. What the hell type of freedom is that when one segment of society rules and steals from the others?
But you are the one judging here. You have pronounced that the left wants "equality of final situation," and that is the case because you view a more egalitarian view of resource distribution to be the end-all be-all in adjudging what the final situation is. This reflects your inherent bias to view life as a game, with money as your score.
Here's a news flash for you. There aren't enough resources for every person on the planet to live like the average American does. Americans are using far more than their fair share. It's funny that you dislike government's influence so much when the only thing propping up an egregiously immoral private property system is said government and its very large military.
I already said: in a perfect world, it's all a values game. I do value some things over others. There are NO impartial participants in this discussion. No one here is unbiased, no one here is saying that all views are equally good or right. If that were true, then this thread wouldn't exist.
My original purpose was to point out that "diversity" is about as far down the list of progressive concern as one can go. Different people values different things. For you, it's about achieving "equality." An impossible goal, and one I don't value.
Technology advances, but I agree. Some are better off than others. I'm saying that's not bad! I'm not denying your statement as a pure fact (though I do think it's debatable), but I'm saying "so what?" Individuals (IMO where the focus should be) can advance from any station in life. Now more than almost any other time in history!
If I may point out an irony: you dislike wealth so much, yet here there you sit with a smart phone or computer, richer than most of the world. You encourage a government large enough to impose your morality while criticizing the religious for opposing gay marriage. You advocate a system that would always end up being run by the people you find "immoral."
EPT
![[image loading]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/MWimages/MW-BV468_fb_hea_MG_20140226140959.jpg)
