"Book club"

[myrkul]

It doesn't matter where my boundaries lie.

Oh, but it does! This is the society you are proposing and defending, so I need to know exactly what is OK, an what is morally repugnant. I promise you, this is the last question along these lines that I will ask. Is discrimination on religious basis OK or not?

[Hawker]

It doesn't matter where my boundaries lie.

Oh, but it does! This is the society you are proposing and defending, so I need to know exactly what is OK, an what is morally repugnant. I promise you, this is the last question along these lines that I will ask. Is discrimination on religious basis OK or not?

No simple answer.  I grew up with Catholic only and Protestant only housing, education and businesses.  Of course that is bad and its now illegal.  That doesn't mean that a Protestant has to accept an application from a Catholic to be the local pastor.  So on religion the law has to assume that discrimination is bad except where it is needed.

[myrkul]

It doesn't matter where my boundaries lie.

Oh, but it does! This is the society you are proposing and defending, so I need to know exactly what is OK, an what is morally repugnant. I promise you, this is the last question along these lines that I will ask. Is discrimination on religious basis OK or not?

No simple answer.  I grew up with Catholic only and Protestant only housing, education and businesses.  Of course that is bad and its now illegal.  That doesn't mean that a Protestant has to accept an application from a Catholic to be the local pastor.  So on religion the law has to assume that discrimination is bad except where it is needed.

But we are speaking of a shop owner, refusing business. Is refusing business to someone because they are Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Muslim, an acceptable practice, or not?

[Hawker]

It doesn't matter where my boundaries lie.

Oh, but it does! This is the society you are proposing and defending, so I need to know exactly what is OK, an what is morally repugnant. I promise you, this is the last question along these lines that I will ask. Is discrimination on religious basis OK or not?

No simple answer.  I grew up with Catholic only and Protestant only housing, education and businesses.  Of course that is bad and its now illegal.  That doesn't mean that a Protestant has to accept an application from a Catholic to be the local pastor.  So on religion the law has to assume that discrimination is bad except where it is needed.

But we are speaking of a shop owner, refusing business. Is refusing business to someone because they are Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Muslim, an acceptable practice, or not?

No.

[myrkul]

Is refusing business to someone because they are Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Muslim, an acceptable practice, or not?

No.

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

Yes. 

You want a society where its legal to refuse a man a job, house or a loan because he is black.  ... Disgusting.

OK, thank you. Now that I have gotten you to outline your position, We're going to switch gears a little. Why, exactly, is discriminating on the basis of behavior OK, but race and religion bad?

[Hawker]

Is refusing business to someone because they are Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Muslim, an acceptable practice, or not?

No.

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

Yes. 

You want a society where its legal to refuse a man a job, house or a loan because he is black.  ... Disgusting.

OK, thank you. Now that I have gotten you to outline your position, We're going to switch gears a little. Why, exactly, is discriminating on the basis of behavior OK, but race and religion bad?

Sorry not wasting time on this.  I had expected you to be opposed to legalising discrimination based on race.  You aren't. 

[myrkul]

Is refusing business to someone because they are Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Muslim, an acceptable practice, or not?

No.

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

Yes. 

You want a society where its legal to refuse a man a job, house or a loan because he is black.  ... Disgusting.

OK, thank you. Now that I have gotten you to outline your position, We're going to switch gears a little. Why, exactly, is discriminating on the basis of behavior OK, but race and religion bad?

Sorry not wasting time on this.  I had expected you to be opposed to legalising discrimination based on race.  You aren't. 

No, no... this is important. You may even be able to change my mind here. I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong. I honestly want to know why you are OK with the shop owner refusing service on some terms, but not on others.

[Hawker]

There is a difference between refusing service based on how a person is born as opposed to how they behave. 

[myrkul]

There is a difference between refusing service based on how a person is born as opposed to how they behave. 

But religion is a behavior. It can be changed.

[Hawker]

There is a difference between refusing service based on how a person is born as opposed to how they behave.  

But religion is a behavior. It can be changed.

You know, boring someone to death is not a way to persuade them of anything.  I've done you the courtesy of reading the book.  To be honest, I expected Friedman to be in favour of the NAP and the conversation to be about that.  Instead you want to talk about why racial discrimination should be legal and to wander up and down a list of things that may or may not be offensive.  Its clear that you will go on forever - no thanks.

The real thing here is where the author of the book stands.  Friedman was favour of allowing racial discrimination.  He is also in favour of the military draft.  You agree with him on allowing racial discrimination.  I assume you agree with him about conscription being OK.  Where does this leave your advocating the NAP?

[myrkul]

The real thing here is where the author of the book stands.  He was favour of allowing racial discrimination.  He is also in favour of the military draft.  You agree with him on allowing racial discrimination.  I assume you agree with him about conscription being OK.  

You assume incorrectly. As I have said, I advocate a completely voluntary society, and the draft is decidedly against that. You can safely assume that anything that would require a state, I differ in my opinion on from the author.

Now that you have failed to explain why you believe that some behaviors are an acceptable basis for discrimination, and others are not, allow me to explain why I defend all discrimination:

The store owner owns his property. It is his store. It is his goods that he sells there. If he chooses not to sell them to someone, for whatever reason, that is his choice. Forcing him to do so against his wishes is a violation of his property rights.

[Hawker]

The real thing here is where the author of the book stands.  He was favour of allowing racial discrimination.  He is also in favour of the military draft.  You agree with him on allowing racial discrimination.  I assume you agree with him about conscription being OK.  

You assume incorrectly. As I have said, I advocate a completely voluntary society, and the draft is decidedly against that. You can safely assume that anything that would require a state, I differ in my opinion on from the author.

Now that you have failed to explain why you believe that some behaviors are an acceptable basis for discrimination, and others are not, allow me to explain why I defend all discrimination:

The store owner owns his property. It is his store. It is his goods that he sells there. If he chooses not to sell them to someone, for whatever reason, that is his choice. Forcing him to do so against his wishes is a violation of his property rights.

Well if you don't agree with Friedman, why did you ask us to read the book? 

[ribuck]

You know, boring someone to death is not a way to persuade them of anything.

Wise words, Hawker. May they serve you well!

[Hawker]

You know, boring someone to death is not a way to persuade them of anything.

Wise words, Hawker. May they serve you well!

Ouch! 

[myrkul]

Well if you don't agree with Friedman, why did you ask us to read the book? 

Because I can respect a man's position, even if I disagree with him. Also, a moderate position is a better introduction than an extreme one.

[Hawker]

Well if you don't agree with Friedman, why did you ask us to read the book? 

Because I can respect a man's position, even if I disagree with him. Also, a moderate position is a better introduction than an extreme one.

So its a good book but you don't agree with it? 

lol fine. 

[myrkul]

Well if you don't agree with Friedman, why did you ask us to read the book? 

Because I can respect a man's position, even if I disagree with him. Also, a moderate position is a better introduction than an extreme one.

So its a good book but you don't agree with it? 

I don't agree with all of it. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.

[Hawker]

Well if you don't agree with Friedman, why did you ask us to read the book?  

Because I can respect a man's position, even if I disagree with him. Also, a moderate position is a better introduction than an extreme one.

So its a good book but you don't agree with it?  

I don't agree with all of it. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.

You don't agree with its central premise that the NAP is bunk or that a state is needed.  Apart from agreeing that racial discrimination should be legalised again, I can't see what you agree with in that book.

[myrkul]

You don't agree with its central premise that the NAP is bunk or that a state is needed.  Apart from agreeing that racial discrimination should be legalised again, I can't see what you agree with in that book.

I proposed it mostly for the description of market law. Perhaps you would like another book to read? I can suggest one much closer to my own views, if you like.

[Hawker]

You don't agree with its central premise that the NAP is bunk or that a state is needed.  Apart from agreeing that racial discrimination should be legalised again, I can't see what you agree with in that book.

I proposed it mostly for the description of market law. Perhaps you would like another book to read? I can suggest one much closer to my own views, if you like.

But you don't agree with the description of market law.  What you describe and what he describe are very different.

Have you actually read the book?