61–70 of 1001 posts
Private enterprises should always retain the right to refuse to do business with violent and dangerous entities.
The day the government FORCES me to have to do business with someone intending harm on others..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should I be worried? Probably not since I am not advocating for the violent overthrow of democracy in America.
wikileaks was mainly attacked through denial of access to the financial system. Would you be ok with Stripe stopping payment to the GOP?
Has the GOP, specifically the GOP, advocated for the violent overthrow of the United States Government?
Market remains open for other market participants to make other choices.
He'll have to start taking cryptocurrency.
"I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air. Unregulated Crypto Assets can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity."
The people cheering this on will not be protected when the mob comes for you. We live in a digital age. If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.
Banks accounts? All internet presence? Neither of those things is happening. They still have websites, not to mention a press secretary with the world’s press at their feet. Minimizing it to just wrong opinions? NAMBLA, look it up, is still around so stating this is about wrong opinions is ignorant. I’m fairly certain that attempting to overthrow the government to get your desired election result is fascism. Saying w…
I can't believe I'm actually going to go to this topic, but your argument has been made before with the Reichstag Fire [1]. Using threats of violence as a pretext for assuming more government control is a tactic as old as governments.
> The Nazi Party used the fire as a pretext to claim that communists were plotting against the German government, which made the fire pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if during world war 2 people opposed fighting nazis like this...
The US is not at war, these are two groups within a single country.
The people cheering this on will not be protected when the mob comes for you. We live in a digital age. If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.
The people cheering this on will not be protected when the mob comes for you. We live in a digital age. If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Internet businesses are natural monopolies and being banned from one can ruin your life without trial in a way that was unprecedented for private companies to be able to do in the past. What solution do you propose? Take away the right of association from one group of people to enable another group? That seems strange to me. If you allow the government to create a precedent where you can restrict the rights of anyon…
What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake for their child bride!"). I happen to disagree with it as it applies in the real world
No. I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'll try to boil it down to as few words as possible:
If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not.
As for the example you give, bakers don't have to bake a cake for gay weddings.