***** You changed your pic.

***** Of course. Unfortunately for you, you have no idea what percentage of your customer base is. Therefore, making tou the dumbest man to ever run a business if you were to do so. Let the market function.

Oddible Fam Yes, let the market function. In the Depression, the Holy Market functioned to burn piles of food with kerosene because the food could not be sold because everyone was out of work. So, people starved while food was burned. But, at least the market was working.

Oddible Fam How about the Great Irish Famine? Was that the work of capitalism? Or do you, like the capitalists exporting food and livestock from Ireland while a million starved to death, attribute that to the work of "providence"?

LTrotsky 21st Century Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. This wasn't enacted by the market my friend.

I've marathoned so many of these debates. So much fun

Yes

I do listen to him all day. Amazing

Sam's argument is literally: "You are critical of society yet you participate in society. Curious."

@@Anom990 You must be a libertarian. The point isn't that the caller participates in society, but that he most likely supports many features of it, despite the fact that such a position is anathema to his ideology.

The best part is, the caller thought he had a good intellectual flourish going with that single-sex school thing, until Sam popped his bubble by saying single-sex schools are pretty bad. Every time the caller pauses, you can just hear the bean bounce around desperately trying to come up with some more good paper.

Refreshing to hear and a good example of how to conduct a discussion/argument. Not sure if "good point" is a good choice of words by Sam as opposed to "good example," because the existence of an all girls/boys school doesn't necessarily mean you've made a good point for allowing businesses to discriminate. It just means that you've found a valid example of where businesses are still currently allowed to discriminate based on sex. But the justification for such discrimination is unclear.

if the school is privately owned why shouldn't they be able to discriminate based on property rights in the constitution

@@robinsss because like businesses they are a hybrid between private and public, they can ask people to leave but have to treat people equally, its quite simple. just like why should i have to drive with a seatbelt or the speed limit when im driving my privately owned car

​@@scottgreeff7043 the idea off a there being a grey area between public and private presented by congressmen in the civil rights act gas no foundation in law in law there is no grey area between them the seatbelt law also violates my rights

That’s a sick goddamned burn.

a few seconds after he said the business is private : it can't be both

This...is actually perfect and sums up my views very well. Fuckin' libertarians, man. I think even conservatives understand governance and political science more than libertarians.

MrBlack74 Yeah, you know that a political ideology is really terrible when you start invoking Republicans as a positive counter-example.

Gov't arose out of the stone age after the dominant tribes over took weak ones. This isn't some organization of peace that was superior to others, its just the inherited power of murderous clans. Buts its civilized?

kathy kelly And you want to take us back to stone age social organization, and you're expecting a different result this time. DERP!

MilitantAntiTheist I rather seriously doubt it's a girl. More than likely it's just a sock puppet of Armando.

I've replayed it so many times. RIP brother 🙏

No idea how but every time I watch one of these vids I always see your comments on the top.

DeviantCare I suppose I have a knack for poignant and catchy put-downs.

Then keep it up!

whyamimrpink78 Let's just say one skin colour seem to be more opposed to regulating racial discrimination than the other.

***** You seem to have forgotten American history altogether. His skin color is relevant because: A)Who did the discriminating during Jim Crow? B)Who suffered from aforementioned discrimination? The only shit stain on society are people who want to revise history and couch their ill-concealed racism with quotes from MLK without even a basic understanding of the societal context within which they exist.

unbelievable. He doesn't think people should;t be allowed to discriminate against others on the grounds of hatred. He needs to be forced to live in a country where he is oppressed and discriminated against on the grounds of his gender sexuality and ethnicity. Personally I think there is something wrong with the brains of people like this - they really have an inability to empathise with others who are not exactly the same as them. To him it it all about the theory

a business may interact with the public but it is still privately owned

Funny you should mention it. When I was a kid and the bullies demanded my lunch money, I made them fight for it; and yeah, I'd get my ass kicked, but I made sure that my lunch money was just too damned expensive, and that they thought twice before bullying me - or anyone else - again. But of course this is a Socialist principle, and in no way Libertarian.

I too, had to make a stand against a school bully, new kid in the school and all that, the fucker, one of the footballers, outweighed me by 100lbs, couldn't back down, no matter the outcome. I got a couple of good ones in, there were 6 of us going at it, We emptied the dance that was going on in the gym. No, things would have been a lot worse had I and my friends backed down.

No its not, its private they can kick out loiterers and ppl who dress weird already. Public places for the most part can't do that. Plus these are properties bought buy private actors, not taxpayers, predominantly. You have to get these licenses too, so its not like they are choosing to them.

kathy kelly I love how you're still embarrassing yourself even after I kicked your ass on the minimum wage months ago.

No, they just keep the *Closed* sign on their store. If you try to buy a product from their establishment you'l get shot for trespassing. Especially if your African American.

kathy kelly Do you not understand the distinction between asking a particular individual to leave and preventing an entire category of people from entering? Not a big surprise, since you can't seem to distinguish between a space open to the public and one owned by the government.

kathy kelly Wow, you're stupid. 1) A business can kick out loiterers because they're not there to buy anything. 2) No, a business can not kick someone out for "dressing weird".

Sam said all schools should be forced to be co-ed

lol it's funny because the point he made backfired on his argument.

During the trans bathroom "debate" I suggested that the most reasonable solution was to make all bathrooms unisex. I caught plenty of flack for that, from certain people, for reasons I don't fully understand. - I mean a lot of places have unisex toilets, and there's no evidence that separating bathrooms by gender is any safer for anyone, so other than by some dumb "cooties" logic, I fail to see how having bathrooms for different genders is not already a form of discrimination.

"Lightbringer lol it's funny because the point he made backfired on his argument." It's because he wanted to catch Sam Seder in an ideological contradiction, I've seen Seder call out other Libertarians in the past for this, by suggesting that they are _attempting_ (but usually failing) to build a complete ideological consistency, so that they can say their perspective on a matter is both rational and firm, and that pulling a gotcha on Sam, or any other debate subject, only serves to "reaffirm" their positions in some way, for them. It's like a game. As if the point of a debate is to run your finger along a person's wall of philosophy until you find a hole big enough to put your arm through. Sam on the other hand - he says - is not concerned with total consistency of logic or ideology, he's concerned with what's fair in a given situation. Now, not to credit Seder too highly for this, but the irony there is his philosophy ends up being a lot more consistent. The guy says "Why are there schools for just girls then?" And Sam goes "I don't know, that's a good question, I don't have a problem with anyone changing that." The guy's mostly trapped by that, because he *wasn't* trying to make a point, and he was *only* looking for holes. Rarely does the reverse happen in any of these that I've seen, where Seder fishes for holes and finds none, and in individual instances where that does happen he only breaks it down further to get at the heart of their philosophy, to see where the caller thinks they fundamentally disagree.

whyamimrpink78 Progressives argue that people generally have the right not to go BELOW a certain level of comfort. You, on the other hand, are arguing that you personally deserve to go ABOVE a certain level of comfort. Your pronouncement about capitalism makes absolutely no sense in light of the 1890's, the 1920's, the 1930's, and the 1980's.

Yes. This is correct, and in this society, it's certainly a problem!

Refreshing to hear and a good example of how to conduct a discussion/argument. Not sure if "good point" is a good choice of words by Sam as opposed to "good example," because the existence of an all girls/boys school doesn't necessarily mean you've made a good point for allowing businesses to discriminate. It just means that you've found a valid example of where businesses are still currently allowed to discriminate based on sex. But the justification for such discrimination is unclear. What is the reason given for justifying the existence of such schools?

I am talking about a certain condition, you are talking about a different condition. I limited my condition in order to illustrate the issue better. I am selling water, you are dying of thirst. I refuse it to you for some religious or other reason, exercising my right to do business with whom I please. You die. All is fair you say. If you live in a society where those who hold power will not serve your needs and also will not let you hold power in order to serve yourself then you have two choices, 1) Get them to change via legislation. 2) Kill them. Aren't you glad the first option is being pursued?

Cool story.

whyamimrpink78 How is a road different than any other product or service? Oftentimes, the State will spend hundreds of millions of dollars building a road that serves very few people. And the question the statists never seem to have an answer for is why is an individual who doesn't own a car forced to pay for a road he doesn't use?

whyamimrpink78 "I simply don't have a choice but to use it." Why do you say that?

whyamimrpink78 So you do have a choice. The choice to starve. Same response I hear from libertarians when I say "I don't have a choice but wage slavery because I don't have the capital to start my own business". You seem more reasonable than most people I argue with, so I'm hoping this can be seen as a bridge of understanding. Maybe there is a middle ground that limits state power *and* corporate power that we can find.

anphernie You do pay for roads you don't wind up using through property tax, sales tax and other state taxes. Nice pseudointellectual flourish, but you'll have to try better bud.

how is it a good argument? the caller said he was forced to associate and Sam hit him back with the license argument, which businesses are forced to get otherwise they will be shut down. So its not force because they are forced to get a license which says they can't discriminate?

kathy kelly So what you're basically saying is: abolish corporations and all regulation on them since any laws imposed on businesses are a form of coercion. Let's see the outcomes: You don't need contracts with your workers. You don't need to serve Christians if you don't like them. You don't need to make sure the environment isn't polluted. You don't need to tell the truth to your customers. You can pay whatever you like to your workers (even $0/hour, and they even get to live with you, how lucky). Yes, the last one was a reference to slavery. You just advocated to allow slavery.

'''''Even if the business is privately owned it operates under public commerce. The only time your business can discriminate is when it is not open to the public.'''' that's not the way the founders meant it to be right to property means that you have the right to own the property to ethically bought or built and to control it whether you serve the public or not it still belongs to you so you have a right to control it the founders never stated a belief in the public accommodations concept to most of them public is public and private is private

how is he agreeing to serve the "public?" because hes forced to get a license?

kathy kelly Yes. You can buy homemade laundry soap and a hand-crafted wooden chair from a private citizen, at home, with no sales tax. You do not, however, have any course of gov't redress for damaged clothes or injuries sustained from the chair breaking based on any kind of quality assurance. You can ask your neighbor to make a cake and promise to pay, and as a private citizen they can say "no, you have blue eyes". If your neighbor, however, is operating in a public access building, you should have an expectation of being treated without that bias. Without a business license, why should the government listen to any type of redress you have against a seller?

jesse1018 what is a public access building, this is private property paid for by private actors, they get licenses that say they have to serve the public because they don't want that gov't to put them in jail. But even in your home economy examples, you'd probably be breaking laws by making those products. You can't even open a lemonade stand in a lot areas now. If I'm paying taxes I don't see why they shouldn't. I mean plenty of ppl get screwed over in situations where they weren't licensed, and gov't doesn't just say, well you didn't get a license so screw you. In some cases yes, but its not a pre requisite to try to achieve justice in the real world. If a prostitute is raped or killed by a john, the police don't necessarily say well she was operating with out a license so fuck her.

but the discussion is also about whether privately owned restaurants should be able to discriminate

''But what about a predominately white, racist city in which some of the restaurants there openly refuse to serve black folk and gay folk? Something tells me not very many people will stop eating at the restaurant.'' i agree stores in racist towns would not sink they would flourish i feel bad that someone might have difficulty moving out of that town but it's not the store owners job to help the person has to save enough to move or find a job out of town

or they just have a civil rights law put in place that says they have to serve anybody regardless of color

they could but i can't support that the store owner has the right to discriminate

Then, you're a true Libertarian. Congratulations.

he wasn't anti civil rights...………………………………..just against the public accommodations part

@@robinsss so anti civil rights Btw 2 years later just saw this lol. But nah man. You can point out the specifics, the man voted against the bill. He's anti civil rights. Why do you think he swept the south? It wasn't simply states rights. That's not what it meant for those people. They just didn't want to eat next to someone black. Regardless of what Barry Goldwater personally believed is irrelevant because heconsciously played directly into those prejudices. He was anti civil rights.

@@cnferguson5 just because you are against the civil rights act does not mean you are against civil rights for every one the government doesn't have the constitutional power to force a private store owner to serve black people

@@robinsssSo you’re not against civil rights for everyone, but you tolerate when businesses discriminate against people for their race or sex, and are even willing to make sure they don’t get consequences for it because “but what about their right to refuse.” You say you’re not against civil rights, _while actively opposing civil rights._

@@hwtvi3466 it's not a civil right you don't have a right to be served in someone else's store they have a right to control that property that includes refusing to serve blacks

it gave them constitutional rights but parts of it violated the constitutional rights of store owners

@@robinsss Oh wow racists couldn't deny black people service anymore big whoop. Blacks were getting killed for simply voting. I think that's more important of a right. I would have tried my best to repeal the anti-discrimination laws but at the same time I think getting millions of Americans their basic civil rights was much more important.

stop trying to make it an either or situation...………………………………………………………………………………….black voters and white store owners both have rights so let's respect everyone's rights

That's all Libertarians do: repeat the words of the cult's leaders. Just like any other fundamentalist.

fedos god damn fundamentals and principles. I don't have any principles, I just make blind decisions and am content either way.

kathy kelly His point is that your principles are borrowed, taken whole-cloth from people whose economic interest is to keep money they've already made, so they're convincing rubes like you to spout nonsense that only makes sense if you're already rich.

civilized? Its civilized to ban and put ppl in jail for just being hateful and offensive? Even if their hate does no actual harm. Wouldn't a civilized and tolerant society allow these ppl to operate? It doesn't mean you have no recourse, just don't resort to offensive violence oh civilized one.

kathy kelly Kathy, rigid fundamentalism doesn't work in a civilized society, when taken to its logical conclusion (e.g. Islamic Fundamentalism, Nazism, Anarchism, Christian identify extremism, Communism). These ideologies, left unchecked, essentially take over government, shut it down, then persecute those who don't agree with their beliefs (usually violently), and then spread like a cancer to other societies. Of course, in civilized society we don't jail them for expressing their beliefs openly, but when their impose their beliefs on others, that's where the law protects the victims of their rigid ideology. Libertarian-ism is essentially a form of anarcho-capitalism and feudalism, meant to destroy civil society and empower private oligarchical power with a monopoly of force and money against the public. America is based on the concept of the Republic (a Government, OF, BY, and FOR THE PEOPLE).

there is disagreement about whether to privatize government services like road construction or not among libertarians some say we should some say we shouldn't i say we should keep the roads public most libertarians want to keep the military public and are willing to pay for it but they don't want the government forcing them to pay for it

@@robinsss if taxes are voluntary obviously no one will pay them

@@nosuchthing8 it depends on if they have a strong incentive to pay the tax

@@robinsss agreed

So if you are opposed to stealing, and someone points a gun at you and tells you to hand over your wallet you are a clown compromising your principles if you are unwilling to sacrifice your life in a stand against theft?

@@Anom990 Your analogy is flawed because it assumes there is no difference between stealing and being stolen from. Also, getting shot wouldn't prevent the theft, it would just mean theft AND murder, so resisting wouldn't change the outcome anyway. A better analogy would be: if you were starving, would stealing food to live betray your principles? Again, yes. I'm not saying you shouldn't steal food, but a principle is generally something you don't go back on. It's a part of your core beliefs. If stealing is against your principles, but you steal food when you're starving, then it was never a principle, because you never had a reason to steal before. You may as well say it's against your principles to be a billionaire or to visit Mars. It's meaningless. Likewise if you say lying is against your principles, except when it's necessary, then it's not a principle. You don't just ignore a principle when it applies to you. If a person truly had a principle against stealing and were starving, they would beg, forage or hunt for food rather than steal. That's the point. I think you may be thinking of a value. A value is something you respect and believe in, but can go against when the situation calls for it. Stealing can go against your values, but when it's life and death, then your values don't matter so much.

@@MrNeodylliphan I hope you realize you are calling your own analogy flawed since your analogy was being stolen from.

@@Anom990 Not really. In the example I started with, the principled person was being robbed, but their principle was nothing to do with theft. The principle was to not give in to bullies. You then proposed an example where the principle was against theft. At this point, I've spent way more time explaining this than I intended to. If you still don't understand what a principle is, then I can't help you.

@@MrNeodylliphan The example you started with is based on the libertarian saying that he is opposed to "theft" aka taxation in this scenario. So you were indeed pointing out the flaw in your own analogy.

but it showed why we should be able to discriminate in that case against boys

Tell me, how would it be like to live in a world without taxes, and therefore, without government?

Alexandre Pinho How would I know? ask a specific question and I can give you a possible scenario.

hahaha all i can say is it would be nice to see another libertarian served up to Sam on a silver platter

@@whyamimrpink78 Says the person everyone considers an idiot.

Weed The People of the Altered states of America

kind of true

You're buying into a myth that this sort of thing happens. It doesn't.

John Ivy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke

Well John I guess the New York Times and other journalists and publications have all been reporting a widespread myth that Asian Americans are affected by race quotas, where someone who did worse gets in instead of them. Are you saying it is not policy at any universities? www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/affirmative-action-a-complicated-issue-for-asian-americans.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 "In a 2003 case involving the University of Michigan, the Supreme Court decided that race could be used minimally in college admissions to create a diverse environment. Texas then adjusted its policy to increase diversity further." I think many laws created 30-40 years ago should be gradually phased out - but the trouble with bureaucracy is that it doesn't happen. That's why I am wary of progressive policies that are based on group membership.

College entrance policies are a means of discrimination. "Affirmative Action" would be the counterpoint to institutionalised discrimination until such point where the entrance policies no longer discriminate unfairly. If the policies no longer discriminate and allow for free access to any qualified person then its job has been achieved. However, as a caveat, when the situation is such that you have a large population of particularly disenfranchised individuals considerations need to be made to ensure that Universities do not end up colour coded. That applies to poor white colleges as much as poor hispanic or otherwise.

Gregory Magarshak But that case specifically mentioned quotas and how they would not be allowed. Quotas don't exist in colleges, it's a fact, and the practice is disallowed by the highest court in the land. Anybody who claims a black person took "their" position in a school might as well be saying that a white person took that place, because the claim has just as much validity. Just because a school is allowed to take actions increasing diversity does NOT mean that they are instituting quotas - it merely means that more minorities are being given the chance to attend, through financial incentives, etc.

NUTCASE71733 Last time I checked thats because its illegal and nobody dares mess with that. There was a baker in Colorado who didn't want to make cakes for a gay wedding and a judge ruled that he had too otherwise he would be fined and ultimately shut down.

They are free to do business in a more bigoted country.

Jeffrey Crenshaw after they pay taxes on the way out. Are you really free if your fleeing an aggressor?

baserocklove You don't have to buy from said business, it doesn't make you and allowing them to disclose their bigotry will save ppl the trouble of supporting them. I thought the regulators were controlled by the public or we the ppl anyway? Businesses aren't just "serving the public," they are selling to customers. They are already discriminating in a variety of ways. The business discrimination in the South was largely enforced in the South by LOCAL GOV't. It wasn't just private ppl deciding to, it was the law, sure some would've done it anyway, but this was the result of gov't regulation ironically. What do you think Jim Crow was? Right to travel doesn't mean entering ppl's private property if your not wanted. Businesses are still private and still enjoy some discriminatory rights public places don't have.

kathy kelly "allowing them to disclose their bigotry will save ppl the trouble of supporting them" You don't know much about the history of the south, do you? "What do you think Jim Crow was?" Government is a tool; garbage in, garbage out. Jim Crow laws were established *because* private citizens pushed for it. Do you really think those racist plantation owners who lost their free labor wouldn't hold a grudge against blacks for generations to come if it wasn't forced on them by some evil outside force known as "government"? Think stormfront.com, except more rampant. Besides, it was the supreme court that reversed these laws, yet another case of the federal government being leaps and bounds ahead of the regressive bigoted south. The thing is, I am inclined to agree with freedom of association in theory, but in practice, this is more often than not a code for bigotry that will unjustly hurt people of certain races, religions, or sexual orientation for reasons that are not legitimate (an example legitimacy would be not wanting to associate with more than 200 people in your establishment as it is a fire hazard, or whatever dumb ass counter argument libertarians are going to secrete next to try to down-res the issue of FoA to a black/white "yes" or "no"). I am okay with children on the playground being forced to intermingle so we can all learn not to be afraid of people for superficial differences (a hard human flaw to overcome that needs force sometimes), I hold that racists and homophobes are children in mind even if they are adults by age, so I have no problem with "forcing" them to overcome their own bigoted stupidity. I put "force" in quotes because, of course, they always have the freedom to leave the country and move to some theocratic Islamic shithole where people are actually killed for their disbelief, homosexuality, etc.

Jeffrey Crenshaw Oh yeah that great Federal gov't that destroyed the South 100 years before, creating so much more division than there had to be, I know I know, we had to have a Civil War, even though every other country ended slavery with out any significant war. Of course some would have still segregated, but even non-racists couldn't. Because of this in part, blacks actually owned more businesses than they do now, out of necessity. But how would allowing hateful ppl to not interact with the ppl they hate, make either party worse off? Wouldn't you want blacks not to go and support ppl who hate them and may be planning to kill them? I'd personally like to not fund ppl who want my entire race dead. But its great your okay with forcing children to play with kids they don't want to, that really teaches tolerance. "Hey little Jimmy, I know you hate that kid, so if you don't play with him, I'm going to spank you later, to teach you tolerance. And later we're going to rob a bank together to teach you that stealing is wrong."

Yes a principle regarding what an be measured. Similarly the scientific method rules against your ideology because the numbers don't add up you fucking moron.

NUTCASE71733 like what? examples? Did the war on poverty reduce it? No it stagnated? Did gov't taking over the money supply in 1913 make it more stable? No the recessions are worse. Did the war on drugs decrease drug use? No it increased. Did the war on terror bring peace? No, just more war. Did the federalization of schools bring up the test scores? No, they stagnated even when the standards were lower. DId it even make the work place safer? No that was happening before any laws.

kathy kelly War on poverty did reduce poverty. The fed helps the economy to grow and to make trading easier. War on drugs, agreed. War on terror, agreed. Education system sucks in the US, but it doesn't have to, visit some European countries and you'll see. What does education have to do with making the work place safer? That's what laws are for.

Alexandre Pinho nope its stagnated, sorry, fed helps grow unsustainable projects by lowering interest rates and injecting more currency in the market.

NUTCASE71733 It already had stagnated in the 70's and the biggest dip we've seen in poverty since then was actually in the middle of Reagan's term and during Clinton's, both cut welfare during this time. BUt various gov't programs have replaced the old ones. Currency is not always the property of gov't, w/e that means. Gov't doesn't create money, it takes it over after the market chooses money. You got it, it comes in AFTER. The cigs in prison proves that even when ppl are tightly controlled they come up with mediums of exchange absent a gov't mandate.