Anti-Gun Zealots Plow New Ground

[NeoTrader]

Exactly...

If you allow me a bit of a digression, I'd like to list some chronological facts...

• Before 1914: The U.S.(like any other country) had, from time to time, recession and "run to the banks"... This recessions used to last a maximum of 1 year, maybe 1,5 year in the worst case, but most importantly, it was never anything devastating, regardless of the time. The U.S. had also completely free immigration.
  
• 1914: For some reason, people decided that it was a good idea to turn to government in order to avoid these recessions and run to the banks. The Federal Reserve was created.
  
• 1929: Because of the FED, the worst recession in history occurs, first because they created it and second, because when they should have acted and provide liquidity, they stay put and do nothing.
• The 1930's: People once again turn to government, because they don't want another recession like the one they went through. So, for some reason, to fix one government fuck up, they decide to turn to government to fix the fuck up that government itself created. The New Deal is born and with it the Welfare State.
• All the following decades: The Welfare state grows and makes immigration an increasing problem. And throughout all this time, the government agencies that people decided to create to control immigration, not surprisingly, fail miserably in doing what they are supposed to do.
• Today: Completely disregarding the past, people see the result of one government fuck up after the other(usually the subsequent fuck up is a failed attempt to try to fix the previous fuck up), people turn again to government to fix the problem with a wall and tariffs(given the history of government "successes", I wonder how likely it is that this will actually work out).

I'm sure you can see a pattern forming here... The point is that people (especially Republicans, since a great deal of Democrats are a completely lost cause IMHO) should simply recognize the problem and try to actually take on the problem head-on(the welfare state is the biggest problem of all and the most difficult to solve, so every political effort should be directed to measures in the direction of ending it through time, like the negative income system). This way, someday, immigration has a chance to stop being a problem and actually go back to being a good thing.

But to continue on the path of turning to government to solve problems will just create more problems as history shows and not only that, all the political capital spent in this other government measures(especially the wall) is time lost and that should have been spent in decreasing government's size... Acting this way, decades have passed and the mess only increased. The more both sides use government to fight one another, the worst it gets. And if you think about it, Democrats are likely to win, because they actually love big government... Republicans should fight, obviously, but not the way they have been fighting(through government too). They should fight hard to decrease government in any way they can...

What I mean by this and why this relates to the article on the thread: It is always a matter of principle. I always say that the most american principle is freedom, which has limited government at its core. I never look at a situation that involves, for example, a gun, as the article does, and regard it as "anti or pro" gun. I always look at it as "a matter of individual/private/property rights" opposed to any possibility of something/someone curbing that fundamental right.

The more Americans stop thinking in this terms and continue to think in "fight" the other side with the same weapon(government), the only people who will benefit from it(despite appearances) will always be the very small group(relative to the whole population) of public officials, nobody else. And, as history shows, the problems will only grow and/or mutiplicate.

All of these issues(guns, immigration, poverty, ethnicity, etc) relate to this principle and they all should be analyzed from the perpective of this principle. (In this particular case, the owner of the store has the right to decide what, who and how anyone enters the store, because this is his property. And the cop has options to shop for the ring and every right to publicize his opinion of the store, so that other costumers can INDIVIDUALLY decide what they make of this issue.)

 

[El OchoCinco]

Store cannot simply decide who and how anyone enters the store because it is his private property. This was settled back in 1964 so I am not going to reeducate.

With respect to the police officer, this is a little silly. Banning licensed carriers in the store is their right as that is allowed under the law but a police officer should not fall under that category as they are a government employee to serve and protect and are on the job. There are no breaks for a police in uniform.

 

[NeoTrader]

Store cannot simply decide who and how anyone enters the store because it is his private property. This was settled back in 1964 so I am not going to reeducate.

With respect to the police officer, this is a little silly. Banning licensed carriers in the store is their right as that is allowed under the law but a police officer should not fall under that category as they are a government employee to serve and protect and are on the job. There are no breaks for a police in uniform.

Well, as I said, it is a matter of principle, and you chose to ignore what I said, which is your prerrogative...
In 1964, according to the chronology of facts I posted up there, things were already well underway into all the fuck ups that government had established(or settled, if you prefere to use that verb, like you did in your post), this was just one more example of that.
As to the store being able to ban anyone from entering it for any reason(except on the obvious restricted situations where cops should be able to professionally bypass that right), I'm not going to repeat myself and explain the same thing again.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I did not ignore it, just that matter of principle is not controlling here. Many people were discriminated against based on people's supposed principle. If you think the 1964 Civil Rights Act opening public accomdations to all and making discrimination illegal was a fuck up well then I think you tipped your hand.

I know people like to think that on principle, it is their property, they can do whatever they want, but it is factually incorrect because their property exists and functions via support of public entities.

 

[NeoTrader]

I did not ignore it, just that matter of principle is not controlling here.

Exactly. And my point is that it should.

Many people were discriminated against based on people's supposed principle. If you think the 1964 Civil Rights Act opening public accomdations to all and making discrimination illegal was a fuck up well then I think you tipped your hand.

Well, you thought wrong.

Another very interesting video is this, from Thomas Sowell:

It is long, so to spare you the time(even though I recommend watching it anyway), I can simply quote him in the video:
"Well, as of 1940, 87% of black households were in poverty. Over the next 20 years, that declined to 47%. This is all prior to the civil rights laws, prior to the social welfare policies of the Johnson administration. Over the next 20 years it fell an additional 18 points, but that was just the same trend continuing AT A REDUCED RATE."

And last, but not least, an analogous situation(because government tries to fight discrimination through force, when the market is much better at it):

So, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, in response to you: "What you are doing, not intentionally, but by misunderstanding, is reducing to zero, the cost imposed on people who are discriminating for irrelevant reasons. And I would like to see a cost imposed on them."

So, if some store owner wants to ban black people from getting in his store, he should be free to do it. But his number of costumers will be less than the number of costumers from other stores who don't discriminate and that will mean less revenue, which makes it harder to compete with the other stores. In addition, that stimulates the opening of other non-discriminating stores(because of the temporary rise in demand/prices from the blacks who can't buy in his store), which makes it even more hard for him to compete, because that will bring prices lower. And last, because eventually many people that aren't banned from his store could simply boycott him, since they could buy it elsewhere, for the mere fact that they don't like his policy of banning blacks. So, he would have to eventually choose between staying in business or continue to discriminate. A third possibility is that costumers who support his discriminating policies support him by buying his products at the higher price compared to the other stores and that is fine, because this way you have discriminating costumers actually having to pay to be able to discriminate too(This is what Walter Williams spoke about in the first video.)

I know people like to think that on principle, it is their property, they can do whatever they want, but it is factually incorrect because their property exists and functions via support of public entities.

Actually, as shown above, what you believe is factually incorrect. In these cases, their private property exists and functions via support of private individuals choosing to buy or not in a free market. And the free market is color blind. It only cares about the best product for the lowest price. And if someone wants to deviate from that, the same market naturally makes them pay.
Moreover, if the government tries to do something about it, it doesn't do any good and more often than not, it ends up backfiring, as the two black men in the videos above clearly show.

This is a perfect example of how something with good intentions actually has terrible consequences and why I insist that Americans should stick to the aforementioned principle ALWAYS: "If the government can force you to serve costumers you don't want to serve in your private business. In the long run, it can force you to do anything..." This is the basis for the ever increasing government's role in the USA and what will eventually be the country's demise(like it has been insidiously happening in the chronology I wrote above and has every sign that will only get worse).

 

[El OchoCinco]

Ok open a bar and run it without a liquor license or health department ok or buy supplies NOT using interstate commerce? Same old stupid, free market should control so let places discriminate argument. Private property BUSINESSES don't exist alone. You never operated any business so your ignorance is understandable.

This was the bullshit argument used to support discriminatory practices. So if a Black couple pulls into town to stay at a hotel at 11PM at night, it is ok if all the hotels in town don't let Black people stay there because that couple can just take their dollar and go elsewhere. Free market right...

 

[NeoTrader]

You never operated any business so your ignorance is understandable.

So, like the leftists in this website(and a few right-wingers that can't argue), you ran out of arguments and the proof of it is that you turn to ad hominems(classic sign of lack of arguments). You have no idea of who I am, what I do or not. So your inability to argue reasonably and stay on topic has clearly manifested itself with this attitude. No point in continuing this conversation.
Have a good one.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

So, like the leftists in this website(and a few right-wingers that can't argue),

I totally get your points and agree with them in principle, but we have to live in the real world and in that world, we are way beyond debating competing theories. We are locked in a struggle with people who despise us on the basis of race and religion and who are perfectly prepared to use any tool they can to hurt us. When they are out of power, they lecture us on tolerance and respect for differing viewpoints. When they control institutions or government however, we get the jackboot of Marxist repression and they laugh when we recite their previous arguments about tolerance to them.

Philosophically, the owners of a credit card company, say MasterCard, or payment processor, say Square, can be argued to have the same right as a shopowner not to do business with gun owners. Private business, etc. Same with social media monopolists deplatforming right wing voices. The problem is, in our modern society, these businesses have more power over us than the government does. What good is the First Amendment if every media outlet spouts the same line and no one will allow you to publish anything different? Start your own newspaper, or FB, or bank, or payments processor? Good luck with that.

 

[El OchoCinco]

OK not sure why you turned this into some conspiracy theory. My point was a business that holds themselves out to the public cannot discriminate based on teh argument they are a private business. Not sure where all the "us v. them" stuff comes in. The restaurant that kicks out a Trump hat wearing patron is just as bad as the country club that won't admit Jews when both pull the bull shit line of my business I can do what I want. Uh no you can't.

 

[NeoTrader]

I totally get your points and agree with them in principle, but we have to live in the real world and in that world

You forget that for the most part of your country's history(138 years if you count until 1914), the reality was a small government... But your line of thought, that other Americans followed, is the reason that that changed...
But most important of all: IN THE REAL WORLD, GOVERNMENT FUCKS UP ALMOST 100% OF THE TIME(Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter, even though I might agree with you that republicans fuck up less), SO TO TURN TO IT, AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND EXPECT THAT IT WILL WORK OUT IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY "NOT TO LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD". Just look at history, look at facts. I understand the reason you support the wall, the tariffs, but if you look at the results of doing things this way, despite your intentions, the most likely result, BY FAR, is that it will actually make the same problems you are trying to fix, worse. So, even though I agree that it is hard, unfortunately, there is no other way: If Republicans really want to have a chance to change things for the better, they have no option but to do everything to cut down government size. The more time goes by, the harder it gets and the less likely it is that you will not succeed( and today's chance of success is already slim). But, one thing is for certain, again, if you look at history, to turn to government in the hope that it will work out is even less likely, it is COMPLETELY AGAINST THE ODDS. The odds of doing the right thing(shrink government) are not that great either, unfortunately, but to try to do it is better than to do what has been proven again and again to make the problem worse(turn to government in order to try to fix it), despite the intentions.

Philosophically, the owners of a credit card company, say MasterCard, or payment processor, say Square, can be argued to have the same right as a shopowner not to do business with gun owners.

Just imagine, if they actually did that, what a great opportunity it would be for their competitors, especially in a country with MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of gun owners.

Again, it is the same issue. This is just another justification to do the most to cut down government size. The answer to all this is and always will be: free markets. You might think that you have an alternative, but you don't. History, logic and facts have proven again and again: GOVERNMENT FUCKS UP. To believe otherwise is to live in a dream world. As I said, I realize the alternative is hard as hell, but it is the only alternative and the fact that Republicans simply do not accept that is the reason they keep fighting it the wrong way, feeding the beast, instead of controlling it.