Turned table - LEO gets the boot from cafe

[marshaul]

Yep. Lot's of folks missed that. These children in adult bodies would be dead or imprisoned in most marxist countries. They would not be allowed to be "who they are..." and would be forced to comply to the demands of the police state at the point of a gun.

Seems like they're into anarchism as well.

I've got more in common with anarcho-socialists than I do with most of mainstream American politics. A thinking anarcho-socialist is about the polar opposite of a communist, if one's concern is individual liberty and freedom from state intrusion.

In fact, red and black are NOT the color symbol for Marxism, which is today interpreted by most as a form of state-socialism. Red is the color for socialism, and black for anarchism. The Red and Black cafe is obviously anarcho-socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism

I don't need to debate this point here, but to me, there is nothing wrong with worker-owned collectives operating in a free market-space. In fact, it's rather awesome. The problem is with state-socialism, and its extreme, communism, which seek to supplant private ownership with public ownership, meaning that the workers no longer own their business; the government and its controlling elites do.

Marxism means different things to different people, but anarcho-socialism is NOT communism, and does not share the same failings.

As a libertarian, I find privately-owned (by the workers) collective businesses to be compatible with free-market principles. In fact, much more so than any ideology which prevents a proprietor from maintaining discretion over admittance onto his property. In fact, I believe it was a poster in this thread, not a member of the Red and Black collective, who articulated a notion that government-imposed licensure renders license-receiving businesses a subset (i.e. small part) of government.

Who's the Marxist here!?

I can easily imagine anarcho-soclialist communes existing alongside anarcho-capitalist communities. In fact, I think the observable difference would tend to become minimized as government became increasingly irrelevant. Statists, on the other hand (including, but not limited to, communists) are a nasty, incompatible bunch.

 

[HandyHamlet]

No, I am not getting personal feelings involved at all.

If you CHOOSE to serve the public then man up and serve the public instead of trying to impose your own petty concerns on others whom have not broken any laws or tried to solicit your customers away, its real simple.

Now businesses have to allow the solicitation of their customers?
Good luck with that.

If you do not want to serve all members of the public because of your own petty prejudices, then do not open your business to the public, its pretty simple.

Private business is private. Not public.

 

[tittiger]

It is very frustrating to watch this discourse as people for the most part do not even understand the definitions of many of the words that they are using.

Some of the words perhaps have become ambiguous because of the purposeful actions of the press to do so. Look at the way democracy is used these days. People are calling private business's public because the private owner decides to serve the general public.

Let me set the record straight on the word anarchist. Originally anarchist was a socialist concept - sorry I have forgotten the specifics. I would defiantly call myself a anarchist in the new meaning of the word - I usually say I am a "free market anarchist."

I think you would find the following article: Biblical Anarchism very interesting.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html

 

[LMTD]

Now businesses have to allow the solicitation of their customers?
Good luck with that.

Learn to read, the quote says exactly the opposite of that.

 

[WCrawford]

Not sure where you are from, shoes and shirt is a public health code law.

What health hazards are on the soles of a person's feet that are more dangerous than what would be on the soles of the shoes?

How does having those health hazards on the soles of shoes differ than having them on the soles of bare feet?

What health hazards are on a person's skin that would be cover by a shirt that are not on the shirt when worn?

 

[tittiger]

What health hazards are on the soles of a person's feet that are more dangerous than what would be on the soles of the shoes?

How does having those health hazards on the soles of shoes differ than having them on the soles of bare feet?

What health hazards are on a person's skin that would be cover by a shirt that are not on the shirt when worn?

I think you are missing the root point all together. The main issue is that a business owner should be able to dictate the rules on his private property not the State.

 

[marshaul]

It is very frustrating to watch this discourse as people for the most part do not even understand the definitions of many of the words that they are using.

Some of the words perhaps have become ambiguous because of the purposeful actions of the press to do so. Look at the way democracy is used these days. People are calling private business's public because the private owner decides to serve the general public.

Let me set the record straight on the word anarchist. Originally anarchist was a socialist concept - sorry I have forgotten the specifics. I would defiantly call myself a anarchist in the new meaning of the word - I usually say I am a "free market anarchist."

I think you would find the following article: Biblical Anarchism very interesting.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html

I sincerely hope that wasn't directed at me. I use words very carefully, and I was quite precise with my use of the words "anarchist", "socialist", "marxist", and "communist".

Interesting article, though. Thanks for that.

 

[tittiger]

I sincerely hope that wasn't directed at me. I use words very carefully, and I was quite precise with my use of the words "anarchist", "socialist", "marxist", and "communist".

Interesting article, though. Thanks for that.

Nope not at you Marshaul. We think very much alike I think, However those political words you mention are fraught with misunderstanding I think their meanings also have bee corrupted on purpose. Anarchist started out and is still understood by many to include forced socialism. As opposed to voluntary socialism like the family unit.

If you have not done so Google "christian anarchist" and you might be pleasantly surprised to learn that not all Christians are worshipers of the State that would murder whom the State tells them to, nor follow them through the gates of hell if told to do so by the State.

Take care brother.

 

[Badger Johnson]

i bet now that the police will take a little bit longer to respond to calls from that business, cause they do not want them there, poor choice to tell a police officer he is not welcome to be at your business, yes it is the business owners right to refuse service to any one but i would not have it be a police officer, or any public service personal these are the people that respond to major emergency to keep them safe, not a good idea to ask them to leave.

I think this is quite likely, since there is a petty vindictiveness at work here. For example, if you told another 'professional' that he couldn't dine there, say a medical doctor, you would never expect, nor would it occur that the proprietor would be delayed emergency treatment at their clinic. If you turned away a firefighter, they'd still turn out to battle a fire because they are professionals.

 

[marshaul]

However those political words you mention are fraught with misunderstanding I think their meanings also have bee corrupted on purpose. Anarchist started out and is still understood by many to include forced socialism. As opposed to voluntary socialism like the family unit.

Indeed, many people are challenged in this regard. That's in fact why I made the post I did, because, while I'm not going to speak for the beliefs of anybody else, I see no reason to denigrate a person's exercise of his rights over his being a self-proclaimed anarcho-socialist. That is not a belief preclusive to strong individual and even property rights (worker-owned collectives generally don't like others asserting a claim to their property any more than we libertarians do ). It might be one thing if they were all communists, but they aren't. :lol:

If you have not done so Google "christian anarchist" and you might be pleasantly surprised to learn that not all Christians are worshipers of the State that would murder whom the State tells them to, nor follow them through the gates of hell if told to do so by the State.

Frankly, the reminder is most welcome. It is the teachings of Jesus which I find to be the most worthy aspect of Christianity (although I am not a Christian), and also wholly compatible with my own views and understanding (at least with regard to out interpersonal affairs).

It is a shame that so many have strayed away from these teachings. The world would be a much better place if people hadn't allowed religion to become politicized in this fashion.

Take care brother.

Thanks, friend. Yourself as well.

 

[LMTD]

I simply don't see how "opening" something "to the public" gives patrons all kinds of rights they wouldn't have on normal private property.

And I do not understand how you feel it gives the owner more rights than it does the patrons, no more than they would have on any other public property. No one forced the owner to open his property to the public and he only had to get the license because he made that specific choice.

Perhaps that is a point of contention here. A business license here is ONLY that, there is a totally separate license to allow public access and that may differ.

If I wanted to open for sake of discussion a gun smith shop even using a store front, it does not have to be public access. I do not have to comply with public access laws, identify hours of operation, ADA parking requirements, sales taxs, a variety of inspections etc. I can serve who, what, when, how I want to so to speak.

If I choose to allow public access and retail I do have to comply with all of those things in order to be allowed to obtain that ADDITIONAL license for “public accommodation”.

My point is pretty much so defined by that, if you request a license for “public accommodation” then IMHO you need to grow a set and accommodate the public in whatever form they come as long as their behavior is LEGAL and they are NOT trying to solicit your business away.

Now I am not saying you agree or don’t, I just thought I would clarify the difference as I had not thought about other states not having the specific license requirement to open to the public in contrast to remaining “private” as it might be somewhat the source of confusion, or not.

 

[marshaul]

Clearly the contention there is over a point of law, and additionally the validity/propriety of such laws.

First of all, I doubt Oregon has such "open to the public" licensure-based restrictions (at least regarding police), or we would have heard about them. Perhaps we can come to an agreement on this point. Remember, police are not a protected class (thank god).

Secondly, I believe that any laws which do create such restrictions are an invalid and improper restriction of private property rights. There is an ocean of difference between publicly-owned property and private property which just so happens to be occasionally and conditionally "open to the public". We will have to agree to disagree here.

 

[tittiger]

You said: "I see no reason to denigrate a person's exercise of his rights over his being a self-proclaimed anarcho-socialist. That is not a belief preclusive to strong individual and even property rights (worker-owned collectives generally don't like others asserting a claim to their property any more than we libertarians do )"

I have very real issues and concerns over political belief systems that want to force them upon me.

Whether it be socialism or the baptist in my town that wants to create a theocracy by making it illegal to purchase beer on Sunday or even the Republicans and Democrats in this country. The libertarian rule of non-aggression speaks very well of what I believe and if faithfully followed results in some sort of free-market anarchy - not what the libertarian party pushes.

 

[marshaul]

You said: "I see no reason to denigrate a person's exercise of his rights over his being a self-proclaimed anarcho-socialist. That is not a belief preclusive to strong individual and even property rights (worker-owned collectives generally don't like others asserting a claim to their property any more than we libertarians do )"

I have very real issues and concerns over political belief systems that want to force them upon me.

Whether it be socialism or the baptist in my town that wants to create a theocracy by making it illegal to purchase beer on Sunday or even the Republicans and Democrats in this country. The libertarian rule of non-aggression speaks very well of what I believe and if faithfully followed results in some sort of free-market anarchy - not what the libertarian party pushes.

I agree unequivocally. Voluntary is key.

However, I've met (and intellectually engaged) a number of anarcho-socialists who are anything but aggressive, or statist. While many "anarchists" are violent teenagers with no real thought behind their actions (and some of them thoughtlessly spout marxist rhetoric), that is not representative of intelligent individuals who consider themselves genuine anarchists with a penchant for socialist structures in their own voluntary community. As to which category of individual the Red and Black proprietor/employees fall under, I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt as they are apparently successful business operators and therefore contributors to society. Notwithstanding their unpracticed and frankly inarticulate television performances (most of us would fare as badly, of course).

Read left-libertarian Kevin Carson on stateless socialism, which he also calls anarcho-socialism:

http://anarchyisordergovernmentisci.../04/kevin-carson-cites-eugene-plawiuk-on.html

Personally, I am not strictly a left-libertarian (though I do agree thoroughly with them on the necessity of ending corporate privilege, including but not limited to the existence of limited liability), at least not the Kevin Carson sort, although I do find his writing stimulating. On the other hand, I am a huge fan of Roderick T. Long. But, I consider myself essentially a classically liberal libertarian. However, I judge a man by what he would have his government do to me (and others), not the extent to which we share identical conclusions.

Once again, I'm not going to speak for the actual beliefs of the Red and Black proprietor/employees, but all they have done is identify themselves with anarcho-socialism, and asserted their property rights. Neither of these things implies aggression or involuntary state intrusion in my affairs, or on the rights of others.

Therefore, without further evidence, I see no call to denigrate their exercise of right based on what little we know of their stated beliefs.

 

[HandyHamlet]

Learn to read, the quote says exactly the opposite of that.

Thank you for the correction.

And private business is still private. Not public.

 

[tittiger]

Thanks for the clarification.

I find they rarely make the voluntary distinction since with most all political systems it is implied that you are forced into it at the barrel of a gun.

With free-market anarchy or to a lesser degree Libertarianism there is really nothing to be forced into and are unique in this respect at least in my experience.

 

[LMTD]

First of all, I doubt Oregon has such "open to the public" licensure-based restrictions (at least regarding police), or we would have heard about them. Perhaps we can come to an agreement on this point. Remember, police are not a protected class (thank god).

Secondly, I believe that any laws which do create such restrictions are an invalid and improper restriction of private property rights. There is an ocean of difference between publicly-owned property and private property which just so happens to be occasionally and conditionally "open to the public". We will have to agree to disagree here.

On your first point, we can agree on that, significantly different laws may exist.

On your second point, we are not off quite as far as you think. perhaps stated more clear than I previously have, IF it is to be regulated, then it should be regulated fairly with all parties being equal.

That said, I bet I have your buy in on this thought, perhaps not though. Regulation of private property should not exist at all without contractual agreement. See our state has this thing called "property tax" and "personal property tax" and if you do not pay these taxes the state takes your property. To me that says the state owns ALL property and more or less rents it to us for our life time but if we fail to pay the rent they take it away.

I guess I missed the part of the constitution where it said that!

So specifically, I would say do not regulate, however where it is regulated it should be done so as all whom are conducting themselves in a legal manner and not attempting to take business away should be left alone.

 

[marshaul]

See our state has this thing called "property tax" and "personal property tax" and if you do not pay these taxes the state takes your property. To me that says the state owns ALL property and more or less rents it to us for our life time but if we fail to pay the rent they take it away.

I guess I missed the part of the constitution where it said that!

Hard to find disagreement with any of that! Well, with your analysis, at least.

So specifically, I would say do not regulate, however where it is regulated it should be done so as all whom are conducting themselves in a legal manner and not attempting to take business away should be left alone.

I suppose I can see this viewpoint. My only counter to it would be something along the lines of "two wrongs do not make a right".

But, I can see where you're coming from. In an imperfect system...

 

[ChiangShih]

Here is a question. What are the rest of you non-Missourians always doing on our side of the board arguing opinions?

 

[marshaul]

Here is a question. What are the rest of you non-Missourians always doing on our side of the board arguing opinions?

I can't find it anymore, but there used to be (if I recall correctly) an explicit rule to the effect that the state sub-forums are open to all members, not to attempt to discourage that, etc.