At my gym you're not allowed to wear anything on your head unless you are religious - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

sperbonzo · 01-28-2013, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

that seems very simpleton way to describe the purposes of licenses. But my point was to show what interest a government would have in a business, while you were saying there was 'no interest'.

furthermore, my second point does make sense, you're just refusing to understand it.

you are of jewish decent. there is plenty of examples of how a 'minority' would use the government to 'interfere' with the way a person would run their private business

'no dogs, blacks, or jews allowed' etc

cute.

By interest, I'm referring to financial interest, and if licensing is not a tax, then why does a liquor license cost $180k+ ? Is it because it takes so much due dilligence? Or could it be that they know that people will pay it because of the profit potential. Taxi licensing is used not only as a tax, but also as a way for large companies to keep out start up competition, which is why they lobby for them. I can point to dozens of examples.... But in any case, none of these point to the government having a financial interest or liability in a business just because they charge them for a license.

As to your second point, i dont think the governent should tell anyone who they must do business with. If they want to exclude blacks and jews and whatever, that's their own business. If private citizens want to protest, and boycott, then they are free to do that. However the government and their ability to use force ahould not be involved. If i want to do business with you then it is my right to try to do business with you. If you dont want to do business with me, then it is your right to refuse my offer.

.

_Richard_ · 01-28-2013, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

By interest, I'm referring to financial interest, and if licensing is not a tax, then why does a liquor license cost $180k+ ? Is it because it takes so much due dilligence? Or could it be that they know that people will pay it because of the profit potential. Taxi licensing is used not only as a tax, but also as a way for large companies to keep out start up competition, which is why they lobby for them. I can point to dozens of examples.... But in any case, none of these point to the government having a financial interest or liability in a business just because they charge them for a license.

As to your second point, i dont think the governent should tell anyone who they must do business with. If they want to exclude blacks and jews and whatever, that's their own business. If private citizens want to protest, and boycott, then they are free to do that. However the government and their ability to use force ahould not be involved. If i want to do business with you then it is my right to try to do business with you. If you dont want to do business with me, then it is your right to refuse my offer.

.

i love this form of argument.. 'ruh roh, they have me, better just talk a whole lot and see if it all falls though the cracks

luckily, i have selective reading abilities!

you said 'no financial stake', i pointed out licensing, and apparently that isn't good enough, so i raise my already proven point to 'taxes', making an even further interest into the business interests of a business whom the government had no interest in, claimed, to begin with .

see? we all can play with big paragraphs that say nothing.

as to your second point, you're advocating that the majority should have the 'right of way', no matter how fucked up, or not fucked up at the time, the situation happens to be?

so, for example, lets say there was raving groups of vigilantes going through the south hanging everyone who looks different from the perceived 'normal'

that's ok! of course the people being hanged and burned have a right to, leave, boycott, protest, but the government isn't supposed to protect those minorities, and with them, morals and values an entire country is based from?

are you really advocating this or are you talking yourself into a really dumb corner?

cause i start swinging next post

Google Expert · 01-28-2013, 11:51 PM

go to a more upscale gym maybe? where the majority of members are white?

sperbonzo · 01-29-2013, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

i love this form of argument.. 'ruh roh, they have me, better just talk a whole lot and see if it all falls though the cracks

luckily, i have selective reading abilities!

you said 'no financial stake', i pointed out licensing, and apparently that isn't good enough, so i raise my already proven point to 'taxes', making an even further interest into the business interests of a business whom the government had no interest in, claimed, to begin with .

see? we all can play with big paragraphs that say nothing.

as to your second point, you're advocating that the majority should have the 'right of way', no matter how fucked up, or not fucked up at the time, the situation happens to be?

so, for example, lets say there was raving groups of vigilantes going through the south hanging everyone who looks different from the perceived 'normal'

that's ok! of course the people being hanged and burned have a right to, leave, boycott, protest, but the government isn't supposed to protect those minorities, and with them, morals and values an entire country is based from?

are you really advocating this or are you talking yourself into a really dumb corner?

cause i start swinging next post

I'm not sure how else to explain this. If I come to you once a year, order you to give me money and then hand you a "license" for it, does that mean I have a stake in your business? Did I use my money to start it up? Am I contributing my labor to make it a success? Am I even loaning you the money to make it run? Will I, like you, have no income if you go out of business? No.

Neither licensing, nor taxing infer that the government has invested in your business, nor does it give them the right to decide what products your sell, at what prices, etc.... That is the right of free individuals to decide amongst themselves. If I want to sell you a car for a million dollars, and if you want to buy it, or not, is not the governments business. If I decide I'm only going to sell purple cars, then just because the government taxes me, does not mean that they have the right to say I have to sell other colors.

The fact that governments do this kind of thing all the time does not make it a "right", it is simply the government interfering where it should not be.

None of this infers that I think that anyone is allowed to damage anyone else's person or property. That's a crazy and ridiculous strawman argument and it doesn't relate to anything that I have said. I made no mention of majorities or minorities. Switch it around if you wish and say that a business has the right to exclude whites and christians.

The one and ONLY reason for government is to protect personal safety and property rights. I have the right to move about in public unmolested, but I do NOT have the right to come into your private place of business and start dictating to you how your run it. That is your private property and you can do with it as you please. If you want to sell porn, and someone else doesn't want to buy it, are they being damaged in some way? If you want to open a naked porn gym, and someone else is offended when they walk in there, should you be forced to allow clothes, or are they free to not enter your gym? If you don't want, for whatever reason, to hang out with me, or talk to me, to do business with me, or whatever, is not the business of the government. It is your right.

.

01-28-2013, 11:51 PM	#53
Google Expert Webmaster Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 14,294	go to a more upscale gym maybe? where the majority of members are white?