Tuesday, April 01, 2014

Who to serve is business’ choice

Who to serve is business’ choice

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 28, 2014)

In Arizona a new "law" is being considered which would allow business owners to refuse service to homosexuals. This is another case of a law being inflicted because of a misguided past law.

Does a business owner already have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Yes. No matter what any "law" to the contrary might say. "Anti-discrimination laws" are all violations of the right of association. Even though discrimination based on most criteria isn't nice, no "law" has the authority to force people to do business with anyone.

It cuts both ways. I am also free to refuse to patronize a business because of whom they refuse, and free to tell everyone why I won't do business there. I don't like bigotry, no matter the excuses.

Will their business thrive, or will it die, due to their choices? Let the chips fall where they may.

But what if the business's product or service is critical to life and limb? Like housing, food, or energy?

It's amazing to me that anyone would believe the type of business matters in this question. Why would I ever choose to open a type of business anyone believes requires the State telling me how to run?

Those who advocate this are endorsing fascism. "Fascism" is the economic system in which businesses are "owned" privately, but are told how they must operate by the State's laws, which also demand a cut of the money ("taxes"). Fascism is here- thus all the permits, licenses, taxes, zoning, regulations, etc. controlling businesses. It's also why corporations have found ways to pull the strings of government.

If you own a business I think is "too important" to deny people, I could open the same kind of business and cater to the people you refuse to serve. Maybe we will both stay in business, serving different groups of people. Where's the "loser" in that?

If it is my business I have the inalienable human right to serve- or not- anyone I choose. "Laws" which seek to violate that right are wrong. My reasons may be stupid, bigoted, or absurd, but no one has the legitimate authority to violate that right.

Be that as it may, I would shun any business (and its owner) which refuses service to people who aren't physically attacking the innocent or stealing from them. I would also reward with my patronage any business I discovered refusing service to people who made a habit of using aggression against the innocent, or of committing theft in any way.

This is just a basic human right- the right of association. Respect it or violate it. Your choice.


The murderous ABQ enforcers

I hadn't said anything here about the guy in Albuquerque murdered by enforcers for camping without permission. Because, what do you expect?

It sounds like the guy who was murdered, James M. Boyd, had problems, and may not have been a wonderful person, but at the time he was murdered, he wasn't doing anything to deserve it. At that moment, he was innocent.

He was camping- and found himself faced with aggressive, armed goons who were obviously making credible threats to harm him. Of course he had knives in his hands. He was not a credible threat to anyone not intent on escalating the situation. The cops were in no real danger from Boyd's words. (So he should have had a gun or two.) They were simply on the prowl for an excuse to kill someone that day.

It seems that of all the murderous police gangs infesting America, the one in Albuquerque may be among the worst.

I suppose "the people" of ABQ are getting fed up, but (foolishly) instead of demanding abolishing the police department and replacing that tumor with nothing, they'll be content to "clean it up" in some touchy-feely way. Keep doing the same thing and expecting different results...

I can't help but believe the protests could have been averted if the terminally corrupt and stupid police chief hadn't gone on TV and lied and excused his murderous goons so quickly. At least give the illusion of impartiality, moron. I think this was the insult that triggered the backlash. Law enforcers should NEVER be allowed to investigate or decide on punishment for law enforcers. That is the very definition of "conflict of interest".

It is funny to me that most of the "mainstream" news reports about the protests mention the protests "turning violent" when the riot-gear clad cops showed up. I wasn't there, so I can't say whether the protests were violent beforehand, but I know cops always- always- escalate any situation they are added to. And, no, I don't think it was "wrong" to trap some enforcers in their own (stolen) car and try to forcibly remove them. They should have been standing with "the people"- their superiors and bosses- and against their "brothers in blue" and they would have not found themselves in that predicament. In other words, they could have shown that there are some of those "good cops" I keep hearing about.

I don't know whether private property was being damaged in the protests- I suspect it was. That is wrong. If you are going to protest, you need to focus your attention on the police department "property" and employees. You don't gain legitimacy by targeting the wrong people. Hang the guilty, not the guy who just happens to be walking past when you are angry.

And, if Anonymous really wants to help, they should delete- permanently- all files and records on the APD computers, rather than just shutting them down for a while. And then they could move on to the rest of the police departments all over the world.

It's a big mess, but it can be fixed. Disarm on-duty cops, never let enforcers (or anyone connected to any government) investigate enforcers, and then abolish all police departments. Eh, just skip the preliminaries: abolish police. It's the only reasonable course.

No, I'm not "April Fooling".

Added: I keep seeing mention of the protest becoming violent and confrontational WHEN THE MILITARIZED RIOT POLICE SHOWED UP. Now, I keep in mind that almost everything reported by the media is wrong in some way, but I think it is very likely that the cops showed up specifically to turn the protests violent. Probably thought they'd discredit the protesters that way. It failed.