Subject:
|
Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 May 2003 17:57:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
446 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > The *Bible* says that. However, that's not what these pseudo-Christians are
> > > saying--they are saying "play by our rules or you're wrong" "Believe in our
> > > God or you're wrong" "Adhere to what we want and forget about the 1st
> > > ammendment or we'll petition you until you do." It is your belief, John, if
> > > this is, indeed, your slant on Christianity, that is ignorant.
> >
> > What are you talking about??? You are totally mischaracterizing this entire
> > issue! And what the heck does the First Amendment have to do with it, except
> > for the fact that YOU seem to want to criticize their rights to free speech!
>
> They are criticising everyone else's "free speech", John. They are saying
> "We don't want *anyone* else to read that stuff, therefore we are going to
> pressure the store to take it off their shelves." Tell me how much that's
> different from 'burning books'.
How much it's different? Not sure I follow.
Burning books, well do you mean me burning my books? If I do so safely and
in a place permitted to do so (my property) that's free speech, I'm making a
statement about the books.
Or do you mean jack booted thugs coming to my house and taking my books away
and burning them against my will? That's not free speech.
This scenario, assuming WalMart is not a monopoly and no coercion is being
used, doesn't seem like a speech violation to me. WalMart is choosing to
lose the business of people who want to buy Maxim, to retain the business of
those who prefer that WalMart not carry it.
WalMart has enough market power that it can ask for special versions of
products and get them. But it doesn't have enough market power to prevent me
from going somewhere else to buy my copy of the music so I can hear it the
way the artist originally made it, if I so choose.
Christians or pseudo christians are welcome to petition free traders all
they want. What gets my back up is when they petition governments and get
laws passed (why can't I buy liquor on sunday in Grand Rapids? Not because
all the stores freely decided not to carry it (there's a market opportunity
for me if there are no barriers to entry) but rather because a majority of
citizens decided it wasn't good for me to do that).
That sort of lawmaking, restricting free trade and restricting behaviour of
consenting adults(1), is tyranny. Tyranny by the majority, and small tyranny
compared to gassing thousands of Kurds, mind you, but tyranny nevertheless.
That's the problem I have with democracys with unlimited governmental power.
The majority of the moment can vote ANTYHING in.
To recap, this is not a first amendment issue.
1 - *Any* restriction of behaviour apriori, is a form of tyranny. Restrict
outcomes, not intents. Senator Santorum is correct when he says that lifting
sodomy laws may lead to constitutional challenges of laws against polygamy.
(2) Where he is incorrect is in asserting that is a bad thing. The state has
no business favoring one sort of interpersonal relationship at the expense
of another.
2 - and it is unfortunate that so many in the media can't analyse what he
actually said accurately.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
