Free speech is thorny online

[Kamehameha34]

Creating demand doesn't mean that demand gets met, due to barriers to entry.

Barriers to entry also applied to the stores that discriminate. It applies to every store. It doesn't mean you get to trample on the rights of others because it's 'too hard' to meet your own needs.

For that matter, even if it's met, it won't necessarily be as good. After all, the new business has to give up patronage from bigoted whites in by allowing me in, so it might not be able to offer the same sorts of prices and selection, particularly due to a lack of economies of scale. I am, after all, part of a minority.

Wah, wah, wah.

Just as the other business would have to deal with lack of patronage from blacks (duh), and sympathetic whites.

The fact that the second business might not be equal in every aspect doesn't give you leave to constitutionally comandeer the first.

Since it's the only choice for me and others of my mistreated group, it offers a limited supply for the demand, thus driving up prices. To put it another way, they can afford to charge a premium since I have no alternatives. And, in the sick logic of pure capitalism, they have an obligation to charge what the market will bear.

Eventually people won't be able to afford to utilize that new business, creating the demand for yet another business that doesn't discriminate (how you get "minority business" from "doesn't discriminate" is beyond me). That creates competition, which drives down prices and increases quality. Basic stuff, here.

Ultimately, the bigotry of the bigoted store owners is costing me time and money. It is the source of economic damage. Moreover, it is hardly of any benefit to the economy as a whole, much less to society. Once again, the libertarian myth of infinite choices fails, while the libertarian puts property rights over human rights so as to support racism. Some things never change.

Let me tell you about a little thing called the "d**chebag principle":

The d**chebag believes that it's a 'human right' to utilize someone else's personaly property at their sole discretion, and god have mercy on the owner's soul if it isn't to their exact specifications.

If you don't stop referring to shopping as a "human right", you'll start to sound like an adolescent girl.

[Thanatos]

Rather than call people douchebags as if two asterisks make it somehow better, consider history in place of the theoretical. Segregation did not end due to economics. The economic incentive was insufficient and great social injustice was done. End of story. Argue a better analogy next time.

Unless of course you feel that we should go back to segregation. I'm not afraid to use the d word if it is in the right context so if you want to debate KKK talking points I think we can get away with it. Irony is not a crime.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Thanatos Rather than call people douchebags as if two asterisks make it somehow better,

"Better?" My aim wasn't to make it 'better', but to spare the site from appearing in search engine results for the word "d**chebag."

consider history in place of the theoretical. Segregation did not end due to economics. The economic incentive was insufficient and great social injustice was done. End of story. Argue a better analogy next time.

Clearly you did not understand.

I wasn't somehow suggesting that economics would "end" the segregation in places that don't allow blacks, I'm saying that it would create a demand for places that don't discriminate. How can you say the incentive was insufficient?

Did blacks not go to restaurants in the south? Did they not have access to a grocery store? Clearly they did, as they still survive today (unless you propose that they hunted for their food?).

Unless of course you feel that we should go back to segregation. I'm not afraid to use the d word if it is in the right context so if you want to debate KKK talking points I think we can get away with it. Irony is not a crime.

Segregation isn't something I think we should "go back to" - as if I suggested a government policy requiring segregation!

We should, however, 'go back to' a system where property owners are allowed to manage their own property - while letting the economy decide if they succeed or fail in their business.

[ShadowFox]

ok, before a mod comes and decides to leave a message, try to keep things at a civil level, lest it become another round of personal comments.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Barriers to entry also applied to the stores that discriminate. It applies to every store. It doesn't mean you get to trample on the rights of others because it's 'too hard' to meet your own needs.

This is irrelevant, as they have already entered the market. They have a steady stream of customers, with money coming in on a regular basis. A new store would have to fight the established ones for market share from the disadvantageous position of not yet being profitable. It is also unclear whether the market sector consisting of the group discriminated against and those who are sympathetic to it is large and wealthy enough to support even one store, even with inflated prices.

Add the usual barriers to entry, such as competition for storefronts, distributors and employees, and it's far from obvious that the market can fill this gap. Market failure is a significant possibility here.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Wah, wah, wah.

Your lack of sympathy for the financial harm that bigotry by businesses causes reflects poorly on you. It reveals your for a typical libertarian, a person who doesn't really care who gets harmed so long as they think they can get ahead personally.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Just as the other business would have to deal with lack of patronage from blacks (duh), and sympathetic whites. The fact that the second business might not be equal in every aspect doesn't give you leave to constitutionally comandeer the first.

Blacks are, duh, a minority, and it's a safe bet that sympathetic whites are, too. Besides being fewer in number, they are weaker in economic power. This means that the situation is unequal, favoring the bigoted stores.

As for the second business being inferior, that's quite likely. Perhaps more likely, it won't even get off the ground, or it'll quickly go out of business, as so many new ventures do. After all, it not only has to deal with an effective boycott by bigoted white customers, it needs to find suppliers willing to deal with it and who aren't afraid of losing business from bigoted stores. Again, these are all serious issues, with the net result that blacks are financially harmed.

The fact that the store is violating the human and civil rights of customers and employees is sufficient basis for society as a whole to get involved. Its refusal to hire blacks or even let them in the store is unacceptable. We wouldn't put up with it in the public sector; why should we allow it in the private?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Eventually people won't be able to afford to utilize that new business, creating the demand for yet another business that doesn't discriminate (how you get "minority business" from "doesn't discriminate" is beyond me). That creates competition, which drives down prices and increases quality. Basic stuff, here.

Uh, no. If the market can't even support one non-bigoted store, how's it going to support two? Think this through.

The free market has never fixed problems such as discrimination. Society as a whole must intercede through governmental action. This is one more reason why laissez-faire capitalism is a failure.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Let me tell you about a little thing called the "d**chebag principle": The d**chebag believes that it's a 'human right' to utilize someone else's personaly property at their sole discretion, and god have mercy on the owner's soul if it isn't to their exact specifications. If you don't stop referring to shopping as a "human right", you'll start to sound like an adolescent girl.

Being able to buy food and clothing is a human right. If you don't agree, I suggest you go naked in inclement weather while you starve to death.

This isn't about personal property, it's about private property. Personal is my underwear, private is any non-governmental business entity. When you go into business, you are bound by the rules that apply to all businesses, and this includes protections against discrimination.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Thanatos Rather than call people douchebags as if two asterisks make it somehow better, consider history in place of the theoretical. Segregation did not end due to economics. The economic incentive was insufficient and great social injustice was done. End of story. Argue a better analogy next time. Unless of course you feel that we should go back to segregation. I'm not afraid to use the d word if it is in the right context so if you want to debate KKK talking points I think we can get away with it. Irony is not a crime.

Thanks for reminding us that this is about reality, not some hypothetical idea universe. Whatever libertarians imagine would happen in the ideal free market, the real world has already shown the limitations of market-based solutions.

The market has never solved problems such as racism, child labor or even slavery. Instead, At best, it's just made exploitation more efficient, since efficiency is its sole virtue. Fairness, much less justice and morality, never enter into the picture.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 We should, however, 'go back to' a system where property owners are allowed to manage their own property - while letting the economy decide if they succeed or fail in their business.

The economy does not get to decide social policy, such as whether people get discriminated against. That's because the economy is amoral at best. It doesn't care if people get hurt so long as there's profit to be made.

This is why we have a government to regulate the economy and protect society.

TC

[Kamehameha34]

A new store would have to fight the established ones for market share from the disadvantageous position of not yet being profitable.

No it wouldn't, remember that enormous base that the other stores refuse to cater to?

After all, it not only has to deal with an effective boycott by bigoted white customers, it needs to find suppliers willing to deal with it and who aren't afraid of losing business from bigoted stores.

And you're completely ignoring the fact that, in today's social climate, it would be bigoted stores that lose business to blacks, and sensible whites that don't wish to patronize discriminatory businesses.

Your lack of sympathy for the financial harm that bigotry by businesses causes reflects poorly on you. It reveals your for a typical libertarian, a person who doesn't really care who gets harmed so long as they think they can get ahead personally.

Yes, we're all quite sure that you know nothing about libertarianism. You can stop reminding us.

Blacks are, duh, a minority, and it's a safe bet that sympathetic whites are, too. Besides being fewer in number, they are weaker in economic power. This means that the situation is unequal, favoring the bigoted stores.

WTF? Where do you think we live? The antebellum south?

A store that openly discriminates today would rapidly lose business from blacks, whites, and every color imaginable. It's just foolish to suggest otherwise.

The fact that the store is violating the human and civil rights..

It isn't. The only rights in question are those of the property owner. You don't have the right to their property.

Uh, no. If the market can't even support one non-bigoted store, how's it going to support two? Think this through.

The market could support a non-bigoted store.. The fact that you say it couldn't doesn't make it true, as you've offered up no reasonable argument for your position.

A non-bigoted store would face the same barriers to entry as a bigoted store - which apparently would exist - and they would tap into a huge market of sympathetic whites (which you'd be crazy to say don't exist today), and discriminated blacks. It's simple stuff.

The free market has never fixed problems such as discrimination. Society as a whole must intercede through governmental action. This is one more reason why laissez-faire capitalism is a failure.

It's not SUPPOSED to "fix" discrimination - it's supposed to provide alternatives to stores that discriminate - which it did.

Being able to buy food and clothing is a human right. If you don't agree, I suggest you go naked in inclement weather while you starve to death.

Not at the expense of others' property rights. Are you saying that if there's only one supermarket in a town, it has no right to shut down? That would effectively strip the people of their 'right' to buy food, while it's obvious that establishments have the right to shut down of their own volition.

According to your logic, the owners would be forced to stay open because, apparently in your socialist fairyland where billionaire media giants are out to get homeless people to make libertarianism 'look bad', and property rights don't exist, it's somehow unconstitutional for people to manage their property in a way that makes the d**chebags' lives harder.

Thanks for reminding us that this is about reality, not some hypothetical idea universe. Whatever libertarians imagine would happen in the ideal free market, the real world has already shown the limitations of market-based solutions.

Only because you expect unrealistic results.

If you want things to work exactly as they do now with the implementation of libertarianism, then you're fooling yourself. It's not SUPPOSED to work the same way. It does, however, work. It would create alternatives to discriminatory establishments (as if they'd be rampant in today's social climate), all the while respecting the rights of the evil property owners you've set out to disadvantage.

The market has never solved problems such as racism, child labor or even slavery. Instead, At best, it's just made exploitation more efficient, since efficiency is its sole virtue. Fairness, much less justice and morality, never enter into the picture.

The market isn't SUPPOSED to fix slavery .. Libertarian allows for government intervention to fix that - this is another clear indication that you don't know what libertarianism even is.

It's the job of parents to ensure the safety of their children, and the government can step in if they fail in this duty - also allowing for government intervention.

The market was never supposed to 'fix' discrimination, for the last time.. It's supposed to *provide alternatives* - which clearly worked, as the southern black still survives to this day!

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 "Better?" My aim wasn't to make it 'better', but to spare the site from appearing in search engine results for the word "d**chebag." Clearly you did not understand. I wasn't somehow suggesting that economics would "end" the segregation in places that don't allow blacks, I'm saying that it would create a demand for places that don't discriminate. How can you say the incentive was insufficient? Did blacks not go to restaurants in the south? Did they not have access to a grocery store? Clearly they did, as they still survive today (unless you propose that they hunted for their food?). Segregation isn't something I think we should "go back to" - as if I suggested a government policy requiring segregation! We should, however, 'go back to' a system where property owners are allowed to manage their own property - while letting the economy decide if they succeed or fail in their business.

I said social injustice. Oh, there were restaurants for blacks. They didn't starve. Good enough I suppose? But was it fair? You don't understand me because you do not see that unfairness.

Public places are held to certain standards of fairness by popular demand. Even in malls, because it is a public place you expect a minimalist set of protections. The mall guards will not shoot you for trespassing or kick you out for race alone. Is that too much to ask? Well, apparently. Just understand that I and the vast majority of people will not feel the same way.

[Kamehameha34]

I said social injustice. Oh, there were restaurants for blacks. They didn't starve. Good enough I suppose? But was it fair? You don't understand me because you do not see that unfairness.

No, I do understand. The problem is, I also understand the constitution. It's tyranny to tell people what to do with their property.

"Social injustice" needs to be remedied with the social justice system. No government intervention is constitutional.

Public places are held to certain standards of fairness by popular demand.

No, not by popular demand. It would be by popular demand if you let the market correct such things itself.

Well, apparently. Just understand that I and the vast majority of people will not feel the same way.

Then you wouldn't need legislation to make it economically unfeasible to manage a discriminatory practice.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, I do understand. The problem is, I also understand the constitution. It's tyranny to tell people what to do with their property. "Social injustice" needs to be remedied with the social justice system. No government intervention is constitutional. No, not by popular demand. It would be by popular demand if you let the market correct such things itself. Then you wouldn't need legislation to make it economically unfeasible to manage a discriminatory practice.

Yet we know the market failed to create social justice while at the same time a democratic society did choose to create social justice. Odd, huh? Its almost like the entire philosophy of markets knowing best is garbage because people's actions are often not dictated by their financial best interests.

Of course, that would be heresy. Generations of business students have learned otherwise...and then gone out into the world to exploit all the ways people do not act in their own best interests so they can make a buck? I never realized just how strange and contradictory this school of thought really was. Moving on...

On what grounds do you invoke the constitution? There is nothing in it about property rights, nor does the will of the population that gives it authority support you. There are no modifiers on where I hold free speech or freedom of peaceable assembly. By other laws I am not allowed to break into a private home and start giving speeches, and those laws existed when the constitution was written but that is not the same.

Food for thought: if the door is open is it private or not? If a thousand people go in and out of a mall (or an internet forum, its easy to forget what this is all a metaphor for) a day is it still really in the same class as a private home?

[Kamehameha34]

Yet we know the market failed to create social justice while at the same time a democratic society did choose to create social justice.

You're assuming that disregard for property rights somehow equates to 'social justice' - that's what's odd.

On what grounds do you invoke the constitution? There is nothing in it about property rights, nor does the will of the population that gives it authority support you.

Read the fifth amendment.

There are no modifiers on where I hold free speech or freedom of peaceable assembly. By other laws I am not allowed to break into a private home and start giving speeches, and those laws existed when the constitution was written but that is not the same.

What are you saying? Is there a point here?

Food for thought: if the door is open is it private or not? If a thousand people go in and out of a mall (or an internet forum, its easy to forget what this is all a metaphor for) a day is it still really in the same class as a private home?

There aren't 'classes' of private property.. What an absurd thing to say.

It's either private, or not. If it's private, you have to obey the owner's wishes and you forfeit certain rights if they are made clear before your entry to the property. I don't care how many other people are on the property, nor do property rights.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You're assuming that disregard for property rights somehow equates to 'social justice' - that's what's odd. Read the fifth amendment. What are you saying? Is there a point here? There aren't 'classes' of private property.. What an absurd thing to say. It's either private, or not. If it's private, you have to obey the owner's wishes and you forfeit certain rights if they are made clear before your entry to the property. I don't care how many other people are on the property, nor do property rights.

The fifth amendment relates to seizure of private property and was intended to deal with war and eminent domain. This is regulating what you may do on your property, not taking it away. Now that I think about it you could take the last sentence to mean what you say it means but that was not the intent nor is it the standard interpretation.

My point is that technically I have free speech everywhere if you're serious about strict constructionism because the first amendment does not come with any modifiers about where or under what conditions I have this right. I also definitely have the right to shout bomb in a concert if it is being held on public land even if you stick to your guns on the meaning of the fifth amendment.

I don't believe that any more than I believe your interpretation. I am in favor of the principle of simply not going out of your way to step on other people's toes. Singling out a person from a crowd in a mall because they're black is going out of your way to make someone else's life difficult. So is a customer peeing in the produce section or holding a PETA protest in the deli department. This isn't a right or a law. This is just common sense for a social species. If you have made your property extremely open to the public there is an expectation that you will follow this principle.

[Kamehameha34]

The fifth amendment relates to seizure of private property. This is regulating what you may do on your property, not taking it away.

To seize property is to comandeer it to serve your own purposes, as opposed to the purposes of the original owner. Same effect.

That's not 'lawyering', that's common sense.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 To seize property is to comandeer it to serve your own purposes, as opposed to the purposes of the original owner. Same effect. That's not 'lawyering', that's common sense.

The government regulates lots of other things you do on your private property. There's an expectation that in a store not only will you not be shot on sight for trespassing or kicked out because of race, things labeled as hamburger will not be recycled rat.

Going back to free speech online I have an expectation that Volconvo will not give me viruses or spyware.

Your philosophy is incompatible with an orderly society.

[Kamehameha34]

The government regulates lots of other things you do on your private property.

You assume that makes it constitutional.

The government has every right to make store owners make clear to their customers what rights they are losing. Their constitutional authority ends there.

There's an expectation that in a store not only will you not be shot on sight for trespassing or kicked out because of race

Because it is a store, the owner wants business. He wouldn't put up a sign that says "tresspassers will be shot on sight" - which do exist, by the way.

Furthermore, the government has no authority to regulate which clients a store serves.

things labeled as hamburger will not be recycled rat.

Going back to free speech online I have an expectation that Volconvo will not give me viruses or spyware.

How does that relate to free speech online?

ACTUALLY going back to free speech online - you have none. "Online" is an amalgumation of private domains - all of which are allowed to censor.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You assume that makes it constitutional. The government has every right to make store owners make clear to their customers what rights they are losing. Their constitutional authority ends there. Because it is a store, the owner wants business. He wouldn't put up a sign that says "tresspassers will be shot on sight" - which do exist, by the way. Furthermore, the government has no authority to regulate which clients a store serves.

Even a sign is regulating what people can and can't do on their private property. You have imposed an artificial boundary and this time unequivocally invoked the Constitution wrongly because it does not mark off such boundaries. I make no pretensions about what authority backs the boundary I chose.

I will not pursue the ratburger analogy because very few people would buy it if it was clearly labeled and the end result is practically the same. However, discrimination still stands because I think everybody in America has seen a whites only sign in a history textbook.

We are closing in on a question of values. We both value not eating ratburger and are willing to give the government a minimal set of powers to accomplish this. If it would not upset you to walk into a store and be thrown out because you're whatever race you happen to be (or to see other people treated this way) then we've reached a debating impasse.

How does that relate to free speech online?

There are rules about what websites can and can't do to their visitors already. A modicum of free speech would be just another similar protection rule.

ACTUALLY going back to free speech online - you have none. "Online" is an amalgumation of private domains - all of which are allowed to censor.

Wow, I had no idea. Just because you can't understand someone else does not prove they are really truly dumb. Yes, I have been following the analogy just fine.

[Kamehameha34]

Even a sign is regulating what people can and can't do on their private property.

Which, in this case, is validated.

People have inherent rights, that they can only forfeit if they agree to. They can't agree to forfeit their rights if they don't know that they're forfeiting them, so it's part of the government's job to make sure people are notified of exactly when they give up their rights.

I didn't 'arbitrarily choose' this line, I extrapolated it from provisions in the constitution as well as the definition of 'rights.'

I will not pursue the ratburger analogy because very few people would buy it if it was clearly labeled and the end result is practically the same.

Exactly! No reason to tell people what they can and can't sell, just as long as they clearly label what they are selling.

There are rules about what websites can and can't do to their visitors already. A modicum of free speech would be just another similar protection rule.

Viruses have nothing to do with free speech.. Nothing is being expressed.

Viruses affect the visitors' property. Restricting their speech does not. It's unanalogous.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I didn't 'arbitrarily choose' this line, I extrapolated it from provisions in the constitution as well as the definition of 'rights.'

You gave them that goal and a mechanism for accomplishing it out of the clear blue sky. Perhaps if ratburgers were transported across state lines the government would have the authority to intervene, but otherwise product safety is not one of their enumerated powers.

I gave them the same goal and a slightly different and more quibble-resistant mechanism that is ultimately just as restrictive of what you can and cannot do for the example I chose. Don't beat me up too badly.

I say quibble-resistant because I'm picturing a pound of meat with m. musculus written in size one font on the back of the package. Corporations have a remarkable knack for disclosing important information without really disclosing it. Going back to free speech, the right to evict posters suspected of being black or install trojans on a forum would be buried in page 12 of the ToS, or the ToS page is perpetually "under construction"...I understand why you picked signs because it theoretically represents a minimalist approach to regulation, but you should understand that there is a reason why I argue for more heavy-handed tactics about these sorts of things.

Viruses have nothing to do with free speech.. Nothing is being expressed. Viruses affect the visitors' property. Restricting their speech does not. It's unanalogous.

I had my exact analogy picked down to the URL and the bug it gives you before I spoke. Its a successful debate site, only it passes out a quiet little piece of broken adware and a tracking cookie. The vast majority of malwares are merely annoyances yet there is no exception to the rule for such software.

EDIT: The point being that both being discriminated against and installing malware are considered bad because ultimately it's annoying.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The government has every right to make store owners make clear to their customers what rights they are losing. Their constitutional authority ends there.

There are rights you cannot lose. For example, I can sign a contract agreeing not to marry a specific person, but one pledging that I never marry at all would be voided.

This is but a simple example of how property rights and contractual obligations exist only within a framework of human and civil rights that cannot be alienated at the stroke of a pen. I've given other examples, such as becoming a slave by crossing a boundary, but you've failed to refute any of them. I suspect that's because you can't.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 ACTUALLY going back to free speech online - you have none. "Online" is an amalgumation of private domains - all of which are allowed to censor.

[/quote]

Actually, the Internet was created by public funds and runs on algorithms and protocols that our tax dollars paid for. What you're trying to do here is steal from society. You might as well put a fence around the Grand Canyon and charge for admission, while you're at it.

TC