Carry Instructor Bars Muslims & Obama Supporters

[princewally]

I'm conflicted on this topic. I agree with the right to refuse service. I just have a huge problem with refusing support for someone because of their race.

This guy needs to be hit by a bus so I can sleep better at night.

I approve of businesses being able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I like it when bigots are publicly bigoted. It makes it easier for me to know not to do business with them.

[goett047]

I'm conflicted on this topic. I agree with the right to refuse service. I just have a huge problem with refusing support for someone because of their race.

This guy needs to be hit by a bus so I can sleep better at night.

I approve of businesses being able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I like it when bigots are publicly bigoted. It makes it easier for me to know not to do business with them.

Free market at work

[Dick Unger]

I'm conflicted on this topic. I agree with the right to refuse service. I just have a huge problem with refusing support for someone because of their race.

This guy needs to be hit by a bus so I can sleep better at night.

I approve of businesses being able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I like it when bigots are publicly bigoted. It makes it easier for me to know not to do business with them.

Free market at work

The only reason a market is "free" is because the governments keeps it so. The government protects a merchant from theives, provides money, a monetary system, and protects you against monopolists. Previously, you needed a charter from the King to conduct a business, and the King kept all the best businesses for himself. In one form or another, that's still half the world. But america is a little different. Your property is your property because other Americans will give their lives to keep it yours. Otherwise if everything was really free, somebody more powerful than you would feel "free" to just take it and remove you. You along with everyone else, have to abide by the rules which are necessary to keep you and your "free".

[Dick Unger]

This guy needs to be hit by a bus so I can sleep better at night.

I approve of businesses being able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I like it when bigots are publicly bigoted. It makes it easier for me to know not to do business with them.

Free market at work [/quote]


The only reason a market is "free" is because the governments keeps it so. The government protects a merchant from thieves, provides money, a monetary system, and protects you against monopolists. Previously, you needed a charter from the King to conduct a business, and the King kept all the best businesses for himself. In one form or another, that's still half the world. But america is a little different. Your property is your property because other Americans will give their lives to keep it yours.

Otherwise if everything was really free, somebody more powerful than you would feel "free" to just take it and remove you. You along with everyone else, have to abide by the rules which are necessary to keep you and your stuff "free" to you, as opposed to "free" to someone a little bigger. A "free" market probably needs even more regulation than a market where the government plans things.

[Heffay]

The only reason a market is "free" is because the governments keeps it so. The government protects a merchant from thieves, provides money, a monetary system, and protects you against monopolists. Previously, you needed a charter from the King to conduct a business, and the King kept all the best businesses for himself. In one form or another, that's still half the world. But america is a little different. Your property is your property because other Americans will give their lives to keep it yours.

Otherwise if everything was really free, somebody more powerful than you would feel "free" to just take it and remove you. You along with everyone else, have to abide by the rules which are necessary to keep you and your stuff "free" to you, as opposed to "free" to someone a little bigger. A "free" market probably needs even more regulation than a market where the government plans things.

I don't understand why Ayn Rand was so insistent that the market would regulate itself. I think there has been enough proof throughout history that nothing regulates itself. It's only when there are effective checks and balances that things seem to work ok.

[tweener]

heffay......your views (IM0) are fromed from looking at REGULATED and corupted markets, and thinking that they are free....then you make the corolation that the free market system did not work....and needs regulation....

Very few markets have ever been really free of regulation......


Government regulation of markets should be the REGULATING of outside sources making them NOT FREE....like gangs demanding "protection" money and such....

It is obvious these two word views are not compatable, and it's going to be hard as heck to change peoples minds......the important thing is that our children are not indoctrinated at school.

[Dick Unger]

The government does not have to make regulations regarding the allocation or prices of resources, IF there is sufficient competition in a market. Of course there are many "markets" and it's hard to agree on exactly the deffinition. But if less tha 4 companies control more than 40% of the "market" the model does not rally work, and the government will need to step in. Of course, government regulation is not going to be too exacting or accurate either.

The government would make sure there are enough companies, (TR's "trustbusting" republicans would be agahast at that today) and make sure richer companies did not use their resources to crush smaller competitors. We've kind of forgotten about anti-trust law today, because of the political contributions.

An An rand did not live in the age of technology, where cost reduction is achieved thrugh consolidation, (more sausage thru the same grinder.) To achieve economic efficiency thrugh consolodation, you can't really have effective competition. And there is no way to regulate an overseas company or country. One can not compete or effectively regulate products produced by the Chinesse government and sold in every market in America by WalMart or Target.,

A lot of our economic theory is out of date.

[Heffay]

heffay......your views (IM0) are fromed from looking at REGULATED and corupted markets, and thinking that they are free....then you make the corolation that the free market system did not work....and needs regulation....

I didn't know you could read my mind. Must be a handy skill to think you can.

[chudrockz]

heffay......your views (IM0) are fromed from looking at REGULATED and corupted markets, and thinking that they are free....then you make the corolation that the free market system did not work....and needs regulation....

I didn't know you could read my mind. Must be a handy skill to think you can.

I don't think anyone here's a mind reader. The comment comes from the FACT that you perpetually criticize the "free market" when there is NO SUCH THING in existence to effectively criticize.

[Dick Unger]

BINGO!

No such thing as a free market exists. Or ever has.

So governemnt has to make laws. regulations and adjustments. In analyzing such decisions, governemnt does use "free market theory". Such theory is considered to make the most efficient, (if not always fair) allocation of resouces, based on price and availablity.

"Free market" is an economic theory, not a political reality. But politicians and talking heads use the concept incorrectly basically all the time. Or they really screw it up when they call what ever they disagree with "socialism".

[Heffay]

I don't think anyone here's a mind reader. The comment comes from the FACT that you perpetually criticize the "free market" when there is NO SUCH THING in existence to effectively criticize.

I'm under no illusion that this is a "free market". This is a market that has regulations that provide a framework in which businesses can operate, and they are free to act within that framework.

I am saying that the framework we establish can be tweaked in a number of ways, and restrictions that prevent businesses from denying someone service for being black or jewish is a reasonable restriction. And there is *no* limitations on states that prevent them from enacting civil rights laws, such as the guy we're talking about in this very thread seems to not have understood.

And as we've also established in a number of other threads, if you choose to not follow the laws, you have noone to blame when the state revokes your permit to teach.

[princewally]

The government would make sure there are enough companies, (TR's "trustbusting" republicans would be agahast at that today) and make sure richer companies did not use their resources to crush smaller competitors. We've kind of forgotten about anti-trust law today, because of the political contributions.

Now it's the government crushing smaller competitors with regulations that raise the barrier to entry to impossible levels.

[DeanC]

The government would make sure there are enough companies, (TR's "trustbusting" republicans would be agahast at that today) and make sure richer companies did not use their resources to crush smaller competitors. We've kind of forgotten about anti-trust law today, because of the political contributions.

Now it's the government crushing smaller competitors with regulations that raise the barrier to entry to impossible levels.

Only when lobbied by big business to do so. Cui bono?

[tweener]

Way to many issues to address them all in full form, but I will address them with short answers


Yes government's job is to make sure markets remain free from interference.....but it is not their job to introduce interferance of their own. No....we should not try to compensate for countries who do things like supsidise their companies as to beat out US companies....look at it this way.....if China wants to STEAL money from it's citizens to subsidise a chineese company, so their products are cheaper than ours....I say GREAT! We should buy as many of these products as we can as long as they are cheaper then our own companies products...because each and every product has been partially paid for by the people of CHINA....it's like a GIFT! We are talking FREE money from china by doing this....the more cheaper products we buy from china....the more money we have left over to spend on prudocts made in the US.....

People really need to look closely at the "trade defiecit", and look at it much more closely.....China spends EVERY single dollar they collect from us, on products we sell to them......it just happens to be that most of what they are buying is Treasury Bonds...

[DeanC]

if China wants to STEAL money from it's citizens to subsidise a chineese company, so their products are cheaper than ours....I say GREAT! We should buy as many of these products as we can as long as they are cheaper then our own companies products...because each and every product has been partially paid for by the people of CHINA....it's like a GIFT! We are talking FREE money from china by doing this....the more cheaper products we buy from china....the more money we have left over to spend on prudocts made in the US.....

Would you have bought Southern cotton in the 1800's?