Kids to be banned soon in to US

[NewsFlash420]

It's appears the United States no tolerance policy goes beyond the patriotic outlook on terrorist sympathy, practicing free speech, using legal marijuana and calling a teacher cute. The very act of being human has become widely known as UN-American, and if your a homosexual, forget about it. Freedom has been loosely translated now-a-days to what your free to do, which isn't much. The entire idea of our forefathers perception of freedom and us as a species is becoming taboo more and more everyday. In earlier articles we dared asked the question after outlining the loss of free speech and fight against medical marijuana, "How long until children are banned"? Well I guess we forgot to knock on wood, because now it's happening.

Malaysia Airlines has banned babies and young children from their first class cabins and other airlines of the same caliber has adopted this same policy. The argument was that children disturbs the first class customers, however it's perfectly fine to disturb lesser class customers. How dare the higher class be bothered with the reality that children exist in the world? This has also lead to a recent dissension to have no child flights all together as an option, but how long until children aren't allowed to fly at all.

A Pittsburgh area restaurant, McDain's has straight out banned children under the age of six altogether. This lead to local businesses adopting the "no-kids-zone" movement, which bans children under six from several different business in a localized area. The movement has been backed by over 50% of the residents in the area leaving parents in situations to leave their children at home alone (if they can't afford babysitters due to the economy) while they run their much needed errands.

It gets worse, Full Article... (http://www.examiner.com/cannabis-culture-in-phoenix/kids-to-be-banned-soon-to-us)

[Stevo_Chill]

thank god. we should sell them for food.

[squarepusher]

so are you arguing against private property rights?

[moostraks]

so are you arguing against private property rights?

One can be for private property rights and still dispute whether it is good for a society for certain trends to become popular. In supporting private property rights it seems too many go to the extreme of making it taboo to point out the idiocy of the policies of private property owners. If we don't question the potential danger of a situation getting out of hand then we will rest on our laurels and find ourselves screwed. I did not read the article so not sure what was being suggested as the solution but being informed of a trend's potential harm gives people the power to knowingly choose to take their business elsewhere.

[WilliamC]

So long as it's not a government ban I fail to see your point.

Children already are banned from casinos and bars, and if there exists a market for child-free airlines or restaurants then why shouldn't that market be satisfied?

[osan]

The subtext appears to be some call to prevent property owners from exercising their rights.

If a restaurant owner does not want to serve some subset of a population, that is their right. It is likewise the right of people to choose whether they like that policy and whether to patronize the business.

Forcing a businessman to do business with those he cares not to is no different in principle to forcing him to let strangers crash at his house just because they want to and he has no right to "discriminate".

One either believes in rights or does not. There is no middle ground. Anything less than complete freedom is something other than freedom. Make no mistake about that.

[ExPatPaki]

Malaysia has some weird rules. They still are pretty tolerant of having pork being sold in their grocery stores despite being Muslim.

[Acala]

Children don't bother me even when they are crying and such. But it is still the absolute right of any individual to associate with whoever they want and discriminate against whoever they want on their own property.

But, as Moostraks correctly observes, it is also the right - and arguably the social obligation - for individuals to speak out against, and even boycott and shun, those who use their private property in a way that harms social harmony. For example, it is not just okay to call out racists on their harmful, ignorant crap, it is a responsibility that comes with liberty and being part of a society.

[echebota]

Don't see any problem here. In fact I would like to have a choice - flights with children allowed when I fly with my kids, and flight where childeren are banned to board, when I fly business. Definitelly there is a market for "no children" flights, especially in business and first class. I don't see a problem with airline trying to satisfy this demand or at least experimenting with it.

[osan]

But, as Moostraks correctly observes, it is also the right - and arguably the social obligation - for individuals to speak out against, and even boycott and shun, those who use their private property in a way that harms social harmony. For example, it is not just okay to call out racists on their harmful, ignorant crap, it is a responsibility that comes with liberty and being part of a society.

Actually no, it is not. The only responsibility we carry is to leave others to their rightful devices. I am within my rights to stop a man from robbing the corner bodega. It is my right not to do business with that bodega if they sport a "Whites Only" sign. It is not my obligation to shun them for a given expressed belief. Hell, what if I agree with the belief? :)

Being "part of a society" is nothing special in the sense that we carry any obligations other than minding our own business. It is not up to us to police the opinions of others, nor any practices that are not in violation of another's rights. We MAY hold an opinion and act as you suggest above (shunning and so forth), but are not obliged to act and in fact must not act if such constitutes a violation of the rights of another.

We may not like the opinions and actions of others, but that is just tough. Nobody becomes the good guy when he violates the rights of others whose opinions and actions are unpopular. We only become criminals.

[Icymudpuppy]

This airline is definitely within their rights. The first class passengers are paying extra for a quiet and comfortable travel experience. If children are disturbing that expectation (and my own certainly would, little monkeys that they are) then the airline has a responsibility to it's clientel to take appropriate steps to maintain the atmosphere of first class.

Where are the parents? Why aren't they recognizing their social responsibility not to allow their children to assault the property rights of others with noise pollution?

[Acala]

Actually no, it is not. The only responsibility we carry is to leave others to their rightful devices. I am within my rights to stop a man from robbing the corner bodega. It is my right not to do business with that bodega if they sport a "Whites Only" sign. It is not my obligation to shun them for a given expressed belief. Hell, what if I agree with the belief? :)

Being "part of a society" is nothing special in the sense that we carry any obligations other than minding our own business. It is not up to us to police the opinions of others, nor any practices that are not in violation of another's rights. We MAY hold an opinion and act as you suggest above (shunning and so forth), but are not obliged to act and in fact must not act if such constitutes a violation of the rights of another.

We may not like the opinions and actions of others, but that is just tough. Nobody becomes the good guy when he violates the rights of others whose opinions and actions are unpopular. We only become criminals.

I disagree. It is a moral obligation to use your freedom to promote social harmony and not be a douchebag. You may disagree but a society composed of people who give no regard to the happiness of others ain't worth living in.

[Philhelm]

I disagree. It is a moral obligation to use your freedom to promote social harmony and not be a douchebag. You may disagree but a society composed of people who give no regard to the happiness of others ain't worth living in.

Who or what would be the final authority in determining whether banning children from a business is wrong, but banning (for example) pedophiles from a business is acceptable? If we are going to have property rights, then it is up to the individual property owner to decide how his property is used and who can patronize it. No other individual has the right to utilize another's personal property.

However, to answer my own first question, the free market would be the only acceptable arbiter when determining whether certain business policies are immoral. If the property owner loses income, then he may be pressured to make a change of policy. Neither government force, nor the idea that people have an obligation to intervene between a property owner and his property, are necessary.

[Acala]

Who or what would be the final authority in determining whether banning children from a business is wrong, but banning (for example) pedophiles from a business is acceptable? If we are going to have property rights, then it is up to the individual property owner to decide how his property is used and who can patronize it. No other individual has the right to utilize another's personal property.

However, to answer my own first question, the free market would be the only acceptable arbiter when determining whether certain business policies are immoral. If the property owner loses income, then he may be pressured to make a change of policy. Neither government force, nor the idea that people have an obligation to intervene between a property owner and his property, are necessary.

I did not suggest either government or individual intervention by force. I suggested speaking out against, boycotting, and shunning people who act in a manner that is contrary to social harmony and the health of the species. I don't think that is even controversial from a libertarian point of view. What I said that IS controversial is that it is a moral obligation to concern yourself with the happiness of others. I would not voluntarily belong to a tribe that lacked that concern. It would suck and probably not survive.

[Krugerrand]

Okay ... consistency check time

Government should be force airline to fly children.
Government should force welfare recipients to prove they don't do x,y,z in their private life before getting their welfare check.

I think some of us sticking up for the airlines were also on the side of Florida forcing welfare recipients to undergo drug testing. I remember hearing some smack about they lose their rights when they suck on the government teat.

I don't think anybody here could possible justify claiming that airlines do not suck on the government teat. Feel free to go back and modify your positions on welfare recipient drug testing:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?296033-Judge-Blocks-Florida-Law-Requiring-Welfare-Applicants-to-Pass-Drug-Test

or feel free to amend your position here that the government should be allowed to tell airlines what to do.

[Acala]

Okay ... consistency check time

Government should be force airline to fly children.
Government should force welfare recipients to prove they don't do x,y,z in their private life before getting their welfare check.

I think some of us sticking up for the airlines were also on the side of Florida forcing welfare recipients to undergo drug testing. I remember hearing some smack about they lose their rights when they suck on the government teat.

I don't think anybody here could possible justify claiming that airlines do not suck on the government teat. Feel free to go back and modify your positions on welfare recipient drug testing:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?296033-Judge-Blocks-Florida-Law-Requiring-Welfare-Applicants-to-Pass-Drug-Test

or feel free to amend your position here that the government should be allowed to tell airlines what to do.

Slippery slope there. I defy anyone on this board to tell me they don't use public roads. aHAAAAAAA! Sucking at the public teat again!!!!! Therefore, you must allow government to tell you what to do.

The truth is that over-reaching government CREATES ambiguous situations that defy easy answers So LONG AS government is still involved. The complete answer, and the one upon which most of us agree, requires government backing out of the whole scenario. Then individual sovereignty takes care of things.

[Anti Federalist]

Where can I buy a ticket on a smoking airline?

Oh yeah...

[Simple]

The war on children!

I thought it was getting out of hand with the anti-bullying stuff, calling in police on children who cut places in the lunch line?

[Danke]

I don't think anybody here could possible justify claiming that airlines do not suck on the government teat.

Taxes, fees, etc. on commercial travel traditionally has exceeded government aviation outlays. With the downturn recently and creation of the TSA, that may have change the numbers a little.

[Danke]

Where can I buy a ticket on a smoking airline?

Oh yeah...
On any one of them. Just has to be an E-Cigarette smoked in the john. ;)

[Krugerrand]

Slippery slope there. I defy anyone on this board to tell me they don't use public roads. aHAAAAAAA! Sucking at the public teat again!!!!! Therefore, you must allow government to tell you what to do.

The truth is that over-reaching government CREATES ambiguous situations that defy easy answers So LONG AS government is still involved. The complete answer, and the one upon which most of us agree, requires government backing out of the whole scenario. Then individual sovereignty takes care of things.

I'm with you on that.

[LibForestPaul]

I wish an airline would just ban children outright. It could be business only airline. They would get my cash...

[osan]

I disagree. It is a moral obligation to use your freedom to promote social harmony

Please demonstrate how this is so, other than by using the "proof by assertion" method, which is invalid. Whence issues this obligation and how do we know that it is truly that?


and not be a douchebag.

For a correct definition of "douchebag", I may agree with this.


You may disagree but a society composed of people who give no regard to the happiness of others ain't worth living in.

This statement is meaningless. What defines "regard for the happiness of others"? Please do not respond with "it's obvious" because when we are talking about imposing force upon others (obligations are expressions of force), nothing at all is obvious.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I don't see child-free airlines as a problem. If children weren't so badly behaved, people wouldn't want to ban them from places.

[osan]

I did not suggest either government or individual intervention by force.

Most certainly you did. You used the term "obligation" which the John Uoft Dictionary of 1785 defines thusly:

OBLIGA'TION. n. /. [abligatio, from oblige, Lat. alligation, French.]i. The binding power of any oath, vow,
duty ; contract.



To be bound means to be held by FORCE to someone or something. By obliging one to act, you are implying that they may be materially forced to act as you suggest and punished if they refuse. This is what you are claiming to support. Now, perhaps "oblige" was not the word you really meant to use, but only you can determine that.


I suggested speaking out against, boycotting, and shunning people who act in a manner that is contrary to social harmony and the health of the species.

A few problems with this. Firstly, as stated above you did not suggest anything. You clearly asserted an enforceable duty to act rests with all who live in a "society". Secondly, you failed to define "social harmony". Given how wildly variable this notion can be between individuals, it is picking no nit to want to see the definition before agreeing or disagreeing.


I don't think that is even controversial from a libertarian point of view.

For nothing more than the reasons cited above, it most certainly is.


What I said that IS controversial is that it is a moral obligation to concern yourself with the happiness of others. I would not voluntarily belong to a tribe that lacked that concern. It would suck and probably not survive.

May I take it that the irony of this last statement escapes you? Pulling it apart and rearranging it into somewhat more clear language, you are saying that you would not volunteer to live in a society where you are free but would volunteer to live in a society that forced people to act even if such action was repugnant to them. The use of "voluntarism" here is most entertaining.

[Anti Federalist]

On any one of them. Just has to be an E-Cigarette smoked in the john. ;)

Shit, I used to cup mine in my hand in my seat and puff on it.