Ron Paul's Multimillion Dollar Ad Blitz

When ?

 

It's not just businesses, but the overall problem with the idea of libertarianism. Businesses are just one component of the flaws I've pointed out.

 

So, you are talking out of context.

1. Peoples right to choose who can patronize their business is not a flaw it is a right.
   
2. Can a business truly succeed if they publicly discriminated against specific people ?
   
3. If a businesses did discriminate against specific people what action would be taken to fulfill this new market ?
   
4. Would discrimination breed more entrepreneurs ?

 

1. It is a substantial flaw and the very problem with libertarianism. You're favoring an entity over another. You call it a right, but it's also a poor bit of practice.

2. They can never succeed, especially in this day and age when they pick on when businesses are obligated to generate or maximize profit.

3. If only that answer was as easy as it can be stated: simply start up a business or boycott. A little reminder that there have to be consumers and not everyone can simply crop up a business. That's a crowded market. And also, it wouldn't hurt to act through some legislative intervention.

4. It would only depend in those individuals have the drive to do it. So in short, yes and no.

 

Like it or not, it IS a business owners right to run their business as they please.

Supporting that notion does not make a person racist.

 

Actually, it does make the person racist if they decide to bar people based on a person's ethnicity or race. It's one thing to bar the individual on reasonable grounds (conduct is beyond horrid) or that they don't buy anything. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

..but you said a business would not survive if that were to happen.

How many businesses willingly open up to fail ?

 

There's a little thing called being "subtle". And this happens even to this day. They don't have to be outward in order to survive their businesses. Did that ever occur to you or you've been living in la-la land for this long?

I haven't experienced it personally, but I've heard it from others.

 

That legitimizes the loss of a business owners right to serve who they want ?

 

No one is forcing a person to go where they are not wanted. Are you familiar with property rights ?

Freedom IS the ability to discriminate freely. as long as no one gets hurt.

Not being able to discriminate is a restriction.

 

Wow, you must be incredibly dense. Took you this long to respond?

1. A person who freely wishes to enter a facility that's open to the public and yet isn't allowed because of their ethnicity, orientation, or gender, then their rights have been invaded.

2. Property Rights doesn't include you're free to discriminate against anyone based on a collective. There are laws against it if you lost the book. It's only acceptable when we're dealing with private property or homes.

3. People do get hurt when they are discriminated against.

4. You call it a restriction, I call it keeping things in check. Or better yet, it's called being fair.

Based on your posts, you seem to care more about the rights of businesses as oppose to the individual. Contradiction in progress.

 

We are talking about privately owned businesses. Not public facilities.

The property rights of a business owner IS private property.

you are still advocating an unfair loss of rights for the person or people that own the business.

 

1. I'm not talking about public facilities jackass. Read it closely. Open to the public as in, a private business that's open for everyone who can pay. Again, maximizing profit.

2. As long as someone has the requirements to do business in a private building, they're still allowed to exercise their individual right to do business with that business owner.

3. You're just as guilty and you're not seeing it. Free to discriminate IS an unfair loss of rights for that other person. Don't you see that, dumbass?

 

You are infringing on the rights of the business owner. There is no law that forces anyone to do business with someone they do not want to do business with.

You are allowed to express your desire to want to do business.
that does not mean an owner must comply.

 

As long as they comply with the reasonable grounds on not doing business with someone and not simply because of their identity.

 

If someone doesn't want to do business, does it matter why ?

 

It actually does. Sure, you can apply elsewhere. However, it only demonstrates that your libertarian philosophy is a contradiction because there's no such thing as total freedom of choice. And this is due to one person to infringe on the freedom of others. You can't favor one and still consider it consistent. That's a dishonest perception.

 

• If someone doesn't want to do business, does it matter why ?

How will the outcome be any different ?

 

A difference between not wanting someone because they lack some qualification as opposed to simply being who they are. Credibility of the business would be diminished or questioned.

 

but how will the outcome change for a person that want's to do business with someone who does not ?