whippoorwill

Upon asking the question of where do you get the right to force a business to not discriminate I received emotional driven platitudes punctuated with, legal positivism, "it's the Law".

Although, discrimination is repugnant to many, of which I am one of those many, it is not a crime. (In case you thought I approved of Gay, Race or Religious discrimination I DO NOT APPROVE) The phrases "No victim, no crime" and "Mind your own business" falls on ears of the unprincipled, in this case, as saugrenu.

Repugnant as these types of discrimination are it does not violate a person's property nor is it an aggression upon them. Notice that the aggression is advocated by those that would like to think of themselves as "tolerant".

Some may ask where is the aggression. It is in you imposing demands on business owners that you yourself as a single individual have a right not to do. You say that you can discriminate but that business owner can not. Thus you would send the police after him to make him be "tolerant" or force him out of business and if he refused by saying " you have no right to make me serve another person" you would have force used on him. Aggression would be used on him and if he defended himself he would be killed all in the name of "tolerance".

He was boycotting a person by not serving them, he did not use aggression against them. He did not damage their property. You see the person he was boycotting by refusing to serve them was repugnant to him. But you did not return the boycott in kind. In the name of "fairness" and "tolerance" you felt he was repugnant and you advocated aggression upon him to force him to be "tolerant" like you.

When I asked where do you get the right to force a business to not discriminate the answer is "no one should be allowed to discriminate...It's a privet business open to the public..we have laws to regulate so everyone is treated equally". These are just knee-jerk emotional charged rants with no reasoning or logic. If a single person or group of people can discriminate/boycott legally then logic follows that a single business owner or groups of people who own a business can legally do so. When a single person does it.. it's called a boycott, when a Nation does it.. it's call sanctions, but when a business owner does it.. it's called illegal.

Yet still further there is a diatribe based in Cultural Marxism used in place of logic and reason. An appeal to empathy is wielded. The Jingoism of Cultural Marxism is cast about...PROTECTED CLASS, FAIRLY or UNFAIRL, socioeconomic set, white male privilege and fair wages. Indeed, the only terms left out of the diatribe were bourgeoisie and proletariat. No doubt they were on the tip of the tong and not far from thought all the while.

If logical, reasoned, egalitarian law is considered a worthy endeavor I would suggest a different method of achieving it. One that focuses on the ..A priori, epistemology of rights. Starting with the self....a single person and advancing out from there. Self-ownership of a single person and then how the "Venn diagram" of a group of self-ownership people can live and thrive under the Non-Aggression principle and Property Rights.

I know this will only go as far as I can throw it.

You see I understand that the world I live it is not unlike that of an Abolitionist who lived in old Rome. Indeed, it was only 150 years ago when an Abolitionist said slavery is a violation of rights and we should end it. He was meet with the call "how will the cotton get picked?".

Today, people like me say "Tax is just a euphemism for thief" and "Governments are nothing more than large criminal gangs with flags and music". We are meet with the call "How will the roads get built?".

Why do I...do what I do?

Because I am the Remnant. It is my job to stoke and set the brush fires of freedom in the minds of men. This is my obligation. May the blessings of Peace and Liberty be with you.

Molon Labe.