You asked my opinion.

Thank you for your input. Your position is noted.

bbauska wrote:We disagree on what a market is apparently. I see a market, not only as a place where people transact, but transact ideas as well.

Well, the marketplace of ideas is a concept, but it's not really what the market is all about. Economic markets are amoral (not 'immoral', but have no moral component in and of themselves, only what people who act on them provide).

A good example is in clothes. I'm sure most people are not happy about children working in sweatshops for a pittance, endangered by unsafe facilities, bullied by managers.. etc. But the market currently values cheap t-shirts much more. Maybe over time people will gradually start to move their custom, but as long as enough people do not, there will be a demand.

If a position is antithetical to the beliefs of society, the market will not bear that. NAMBLA can gripe about it's discrimination, but if society will not abide by NAMBLA beliefs then it will not become mainstream.

Slavery and segregation, low pay for women etc all were fine until LAWS were passed to fetter the market. The market was still fine to carry those out, and society was not able to change them through market action alone. The reality is that 'society' is not homogeneous, and while overall it may be fairly ethical, there may be pockets where a significant number of people are not, or issues where the whole of a society has blinders to what is moral.

As for Prop 8, Freeman said "People in the market may decide that firing someone who makes anti-gay comments is just fine, but firing someone who is pro-choice is not fine."

To which I say, people were not allowed to decide in the case of Prop 8. It was voted on (hence the market analogy), and overturned by a judge.

Markets are not democracies, and vice-versa. Your false equivalencies are getting very tiresome.

Also, having an opinion is not the same as getting a law passed. You have the right to any opinion. You can express it (but you are not completely protected from the reactions of others to it), but you certainly don't have the right to impose laws on others - and even the 'majority' does not if that law is not Constitutional.

All you fall back on is that 'a judge' overturned a vote. Yes, that is their job - to assess whether a law (however passed) is in line with the Constitution. If you have a problem with the decision, perhaps you can explain what it is in Constitutional terms, instead of just repeating yourself?

Still, there is a way in which markets and democracies are similar - both are regulated in order to keep them from going off the rails. We've seen what can happen in places where populist political movements hijack a majority and are not fettered by constitutional limits. We've seen what happens when markets are not well regulated and create damaging bubbles. Letting either have total free rein may satisfy an absolutist urge, but it can have dark consequences.

rickyp wrote:In your world basic human rights, as guaranteed in the Constiitution have no place?

bbauska wrote:No (One's rights shall not be abridged by another. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.")

I don't think you understand the quote. Your right to swing your fist is clearly being abridged by another man's right to personal safety. And unfortunately for you, the US Constitution does provide for some basic human rights. Perhaps you live in the wrong country?

rickyp wrote:At any time, a majority can decide that a persons rights can be attenuated ?

bbauska wrote:Yes (See NAMBLA above. See Conscience Clause above)

See lynch mobs, pogroms, honour killings, segregation, Jim Crow, slavery etc etc etc...

rickyp wrote:Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional . Do you have a problem with providing minorities protections for their freedoms?

bbauska wrote:Yes (See NAMBLA above. See Conscience Clause above)

See lynch mobs, pogroms, honour killings, segregation, Jim Crow, slavery etc etc etc...

The problem with you extrapolating from NAMBLA to any given minority is that NAMBLA is a particular case of an 'oppressed' minority.

An alternative is to take another particular case, such as the Jewish people, and see if it makes sense to decide we should no longer protect the freedoms of minorities when we look at the history of what happens when theirs are not.

I'm beginning to worry that your determination to adhere to a rigid ideology in the face of reality leads you to some pretty bizarre assertions and positions. Not to mention 'UnAmerican' ones.