[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
They fetishize rights and ignore responsibilities.
[/quote]
Is obeying the mandates of those in charge the only responsibility you recognize?
Let’s try this again:
It’s Saturday morning and you’re in your kitchen frying bacon and eggs; a man knocks on your door and asks you to give him half of your food. The government should force you to provide the man with the service he requests?
Your daughter meets a man at a bar, then goes back to his place and has sex with him. When walking out of his apartment, his neighbor steps out and asks her to come into his place to have sex with him. She should be legally obligated to do so, correct?
If you don’t believe either of these two situations should occur, then you have no good argument for forcing private businesses to provide service to anyone. Your only argument is, “I learnt dis in Murican pubic skewl.”[/quote]
I tend to agree with you on denial of service, but this argument is terrible, as argument by analogy often is. “All analogies limp” is, I think, the most important pound-for-pound aphorism ever uttered, and we would all be spared a whole hell of a lot of foolishness – much of it radical libertarian foolishness – if “Murican pubic [was the elision of the “l” intentional?] skewl” would do a better job of hammering it into the little minds in its custody.
Because guess what? Operating a business and fucking a stranger on a Saturday night are superlatively nonidentical endeavors. I know that by the impossibly reductive lights of your worldview, all commerce is nothing more than a guy frying bacon for a friend in his fucking bungalow, but we inhabitants of the real world recognize that this is not remotely close to the case, and any analogy under which the business of business must align exactly with the business of “how I interact with my cousin Darrel when he drops by for a visit” is not an analogy at all.
Let’s take one example. There are U.S. states in which it is legal for me kill my dog and cat, churn them into sausage, and cook them up with a side of peppers and onions. Furthermore, it is legal for me to lie to my daughter – who has come under the influence of various New Age bullshit persuasions, including veganism – about what is in her food in order to ensure that she get what I consider to be the proper nutrients: “Here you go sweet pea, 100 percent veggie meat-replacement.” So, there are U.S. states in which it is legal for me to kill my dog and cat, churn them into sausage, and cook them up with a side of peppers and onions while telling my daughter that dinner is vegan-friendly.
Now, there isn’t a single reasonable person – not one – who believes that it should be legal for a restaurant to serve me a dog-and-cat stew while telling me it’s 100-percent organic beef. But by the lights of your analogical fallacy, we must allow such, or else surrender the right to eat strange meats and lie in our own households.[/quote]
It’s legally okay to lie to your daughter about her food, because a parent basically owns his/her children(I can’t make another adult go to his/her room; you can’t spank your houseguest for drawing on your wall-at least not after the fact-, etc.). It is NOT okay to lie about food(or anything else) that someone buys from you. That is fraud. It’s a close relative of stealing.
A business owner’s relationship with a potential customer is not different from other relationships. The exchange is what changes things, and if the business owner declines the exchange, then there is no problem.
The analogies were admittedly not good(and I knew it as soon as I posted them, because I did leave out exchange).
If Rand Paul had said, “Businesses should be able to take money from people in exchange for one service, then give them another or none at all,” then I would agree that rational people could have a problem with the comment. I see no way that a rational person can have a problem with what amounts to a claim that a business owner owns his business.