Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 9:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 8:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 8:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 7:11:00 PM (view original):
The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

I don't think we're really getting into the specifics with that case, I think we're talking more in generalities. That case actually went to SCOTUS and the baker prevailed in a narrow ruling (narrow in the scope of the opinion, not the votes, it was 7-2). It certainly didn't reverse the civil rights act. It just said that The Colorado commission acted with hostility towards the baker.

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

I say that immediately after saying that strikeout didn't show how the laws are used to discriminate. My bad. It does look that this was a case where the state did discriminate.

I still argue that laws themselves are good, just, and necessary. They just need to be applied that way.

Yes, that it why I brought up this specific case. Laws are mistreated all the time. Some laws are obviously necessary. Some are not. Anti-discrimination laws are not. They are even less necessary now than they were 45-50 years ago. I typically don't like using the calendar as justification for an argument, but in 2019 if a company truly discriminates it will be ripped to shreds with the massive number of information outlets we have today.

"They just need to be applied that way." This line sums up everything that I have been saying. The intent of the law is benevolent. It's application has proven to be shady on numerous occasions. As i've said, the market does a good job of policing true discrimination. There is not a need add unwarranted government infringement.

Any law can go bad if applied unjustly. That doesn’t mean the answer is no laws.

It’s 2019 and we still have racial discrimination. Sucks right? Unfortunately, the civil rights act is still necessary.

This is why we need as few laws as possible. I believe society is good as a whole. When something is police by laws, you put the power in the hands of a few. These few aren't guaranteed to be just, fair people. When you let society police an issue like this, now the enforcement is much more powerful and a multitude are deciding what is just and fair. This gives the people much more of a voice and doesn't infringe on freedoms.

The fact that we still have discrimination discrimination works against your argument for anti-discrimination laws. We have had the Civil Rights Act since '64. Racial prejudices will always exist. Put the power in the hands of the people. Obviously, leaving enforcement up to the government is not more effective.

We shouldn't ban murder because murder will still happen regardless.

The power has been in the hands of people, and it failed. Remember when we were allowed to own other humans?

I think we all can agree that some laws need to be in place. It's a societal consensus that murder is wrong and that we should have laws to protect people from murder. This is why I was hoping people on here were smart enough to realize this on their own without me having to type it, but I guess I was wrong.

Mentioning slavery here works against your argument that government intrusion was ethical. Jim Crow is another good example. Slaves were considered chattel by the US government. Laws were on the books to protect slave owners' "property". We then saw state sponsored racism by the hand of the government through the Jim Crow laws. Our government screws things up, Change in America happens because our great citizens speak up when there is injustice. Our government likes to swoop in and take all of the credit, but real, productive change happens through the hands of the people.

Remember, both scenarios that you mention fit within my definition of the role of government. Government has a responsibility to protect people from physical harm by others. Both murder and slavery causes harm to others.

Discrimination does not cause physical harm to others in most cases. In the cases that it does, we already have laws on the book for those people's protection. We don't need redundant laws. We have too many of those as is. For example, hate crime legislation. All violent crimes are hate crimes. If you beat or torture someone whether or not we have "hate crime" legislation, you go to jail. If you murder someone regardless of whether we have "hate crime" legislation, you go to jail.

The murder comment was me being a bit cheeky, but my point was that the fact that a law doesn't completely solve an issue doesn't mean that we shouldn't have said law.

Jim Crow laws were local and state laws, so that point is irrelevant. The people can only engineer so much change without the help of the government, that's why it is important that the people elect leaders who support change so the government can implement it. The leadup to the civil war was a failure in government, but that's what I mean by 'better government' not no government. We can handle things differently.

I disagree government should only serve to protect against literal physical harm. Discrimination can cause harm, such as financial loss, instability, and stigma.

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 10:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 7:35:00 PM (view original):
I still am wary of the private sector.

The blessing and curse of the private sector is that the goal is only to make money. But not every institution should serve to make money, namely humanitarian ones, like prisons and universities.

Tldr - if a humanitarian group has 'for profit' in front of it, it usually isn't great.

Also I don't mind big government as much as everyone else.

You don't for public universities make money? Like CCCP, not for profit is nothing more than a tax designation. I agree with you that I would rather give to the Salvation Army or Habitat for Humanity over Goodwill any day. I trust "not for profit" charity organizations more as well. These are the choices that a free market provide us.

As far as big government, remember your history when you say this. Almost every government in history has become tyrannical at some point. The more power you give to government, the easier you make it for them.

I believe in the free market for businesses. I don't believe in Communism, obviously. I don't think the point of universities and prisons should be to make money off of 'consumers'. Those should be run humanely by the government.

I don't think a single president can completely overthrow our democracy in America, so the people will get a say in who runs our government, and I can take that risk. I don't support a bigger or smaller government, I support a better government.

To your first point, clarify for me, when you say that "(universities) should be run humanely by the government", are you saying that we shouldn't have private colleges?

If you don't think that America can become tyrannical, read about Germany prior to Hitler (I will actually attach an article on this for you) and Mussolini. There are quite a few more. It would be beneficial for you to learn about them. Our founders wanted a small government with the power in the hands of the citizenry for a reason. The larger that we grow government and the more influence that we give it on our lives, the closer we come to repeating history. "A better government" is very subjective and doesn't create a guarantee against tyranny. This is why I warn you against comedians trying to be political commentators like Jon Stewart. They don't know what the hell they are talking about and people soak up what they say as fact. It's very dangerous.

It's sad that our public (most private as well) institutions fail to teach our youth true history and teach revisionist history. It is going to lead us down a very bad road. England is a little different as they are a Monarchy (constitutional monarchy now), but read about King Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth's reign. This is what happens when you give government too much power.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2013/02/05/how-dictators-come-to-power-in-a-democracy/#72653a617ff7

Depends on the intent and what type of college it is. Many private colleges are non-profit and are really good, and many are not. We have (had) rules against for-profit colleges, that I support.

There is no guarantee against tyranny, you are absolutely correct about that, although I think that is true regardless of the 'size of government'. However I will take the tradeoff of a higher risk of tyranny if it means better social programs. You may, rightly, disagree.

Who gets to decide which colleges are "good"? Our government? I've already told you I don't trust them to make the right decisions. The way to weed out bad colleges is the same way that you weed out bad businesses. You don't give them your money. The way that you drive down the cost of college is not through government pressure, but through economic pressure. Supply/demand economics work. If you think a college is too expensive, you don't give that college your money.

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 10:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 9:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 8:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 8:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 7:11:00 PM (view original):
The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

I don't think we're really getting into the specifics with that case, I think we're talking more in generalities. That case actually went to SCOTUS and the baker prevailed in a narrow ruling (narrow in the scope of the opinion, not the votes, it was 7-2). It certainly didn't reverse the civil rights act. It just said that The Colorado commission acted with hostility towards the baker.

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

I say that immediately after saying that strikeout didn't show how the laws are used to discriminate. My bad. It does look that this was a case where the state did discriminate.

I still argue that laws themselves are good, just, and necessary. They just need to be applied that way.

Yes, that it why I brought up this specific case. Laws are mistreated all the time. Some laws are obviously necessary. Some are not. Anti-discrimination laws are not. They are even less necessary now than they were 45-50 years ago. I typically don't like using the calendar as justification for an argument, but in 2019 if a company truly discriminates it will be ripped to shreds with the massive number of information outlets we have today.

"They just need to be applied that way." This line sums up everything that I have been saying. The intent of the law is benevolent. It's application has proven to be shady on numerous occasions. As i've said, the market does a good job of policing true discrimination. There is not a need add unwarranted government infringement.

Any law can go bad if applied unjustly. That doesn’t mean the answer is no laws.

It’s 2019 and we still have racial discrimination. Sucks right? Unfortunately, the civil rights act is still necessary.

This is why we need as few laws as possible. I believe society is good as a whole. When something is police by laws, you put the power in the hands of a few. These few aren't guaranteed to be just, fair people. When you let society police an issue like this, now the enforcement is much more powerful and a multitude are deciding what is just and fair. This gives the people much more of a voice and doesn't infringe on freedoms.

The fact that we still have discrimination discrimination works against your argument for anti-discrimination laws. We have had the Civil Rights Act since '64. Racial prejudices will always exist. Put the power in the hands of the people. Obviously, leaving enforcement up to the government is not more effective.

We shouldn't ban murder because murder will still happen regardless.

The power has been in the hands of people, and it failed. Remember when we were allowed to own other humans?

I think we all can agree that some laws need to be in place. It's a societal consensus that murder is wrong and that we should have laws to protect people from murder. This is why I was hoping people on here were smart enough to realize this on their own without me having to type it, but I guess I was wrong.

Mentioning slavery here works against your argument that government intrusion was ethical. Jim Crow is another good example. Slaves were considered chattel by the US government. Laws were on the books to protect slave owners' "property". We then saw state sponsored racism by the hand of the government through the Jim Crow laws. Our government screws things up, Change in America happens because our great citizens speak up when there is injustice. Our government likes to swoop in and take all of the credit, but real, productive change happens through the hands of the people.

Remember, both scenarios that you mention fit within my definition of the role of government. Government has a responsibility to protect people from physical harm by others. Both murder and slavery causes harm to others.

Discrimination does not cause physical harm to others in most cases. In the cases that it does, we already have laws on the book for those people's protection. We don't need redundant laws. We have too many of those as is. For example, hate crime legislation. All violent crimes are hate crimes. If you beat or torture someone whether or not we have "hate crime" legislation, you go to jail. If you murder someone regardless of whether we have "hate crime" legislation, you go to jail.

The murder comment was me being a bit cheeky, but my point was that the fact that a law doesn't completely solve an issue doesn't mean that we shouldn't have said law.

Jim Crow laws were local and state laws, so that point is irrelevant. The people can only engineer so much change without the help of the government, that's why it is important that the people elect leaders who support change so the government can implement it. The leadup to the civil war was a failure in government, but that's what I mean by 'better government' not no government. We can handle things differently.

I disagree government should only serve to protect against literal physical harm. Discrimination can cause harm, such as financial loss, instability, and stigma.

Of course no law is going to solve every problem associated to that law. What we have to determine is if a law is necessary to solve the problem and anti-discrimination laws aren't necessary. As far as Jim Crow and other similar laws, whether they are local, state, or federalis irrelevant. They are all forms of government.

The left is going to rely on the government so much for "change" that it will reach a point where they get "change" that they didn't bargain for. Growing government is dangerous business.

It's not the governments job to protect your wallet, reputation, or feelings. I have no idea what you mean by instability.

If you want to show me someone discriminatory, I will fly to Kansas and fight them with you. We'll go out for a nice eggplant dinner afterwards. We don't need to the government to protect all of its little sheep.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 10:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 10:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 7:35:00 PM (view original):
I still am wary of the private sector.

The blessing and curse of the private sector is that the goal is only to make money. But not every institution should serve to make money, namely humanitarian ones, like prisons and universities.

Tldr - if a humanitarian group has 'for profit' in front of it, it usually isn't great.

Also I don't mind big government as much as everyone else.

You don't for public universities make money? Like CCCP, not for profit is nothing more than a tax designation. I agree with you that I would rather give to the Salvation Army or Habitat for Humanity over Goodwill any day. I trust "not for profit" charity organizations more as well. These are the choices that a free market provide us.

As far as big government, remember your history when you say this. Almost every government in history has become tyrannical at some point. The more power you give to government, the easier you make it for them.

I believe in the free market for businesses. I don't believe in Communism, obviously. I don't think the point of universities and prisons should be to make money off of 'consumers'. Those should be run humanely by the government.

I don't think a single president can completely overthrow our democracy in America, so the people will get a say in who runs our government, and I can take that risk. I don't support a bigger or smaller government, I support a better government.

To your first point, clarify for me, when you say that "(universities) should be run humanely by the government", are you saying that we shouldn't have private colleges?

If you don't think that America can become tyrannical, read about Germany prior to Hitler (I will actually attach an article on this for you) and Mussolini. There are quite a few more. It would be beneficial for you to learn about them. Our founders wanted a small government with the power in the hands of the citizenry for a reason. The larger that we grow government and the more influence that we give it on our lives, the closer we come to repeating history. "A better government" is very subjective and doesn't create a guarantee against tyranny. This is why I warn you against comedians trying to be political commentators like Jon Stewart. They don't know what the hell they are talking about and people soak up what they say as fact. It's very dangerous.

It's sad that our public (most private as well) institutions fail to teach our youth true history and teach revisionist history. It is going to lead us down a very bad road. England is a little different as they are a Monarchy (constitutional monarchy now), but read about King Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth's reign. This is what happens when you give government too much power.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2013/02/05/how-dictators-come-to-power-in-a-democracy/#72653a617ff7

Depends on the intent and what type of college it is. Many private colleges are non-profit and are really good, and many are not. We have (had) rules against for-profit colleges, that I support.

There is no guarantee against tyranny, you are absolutely correct about that, although I think that is true regardless of the 'size of government'. However I will take the tradeoff of a higher risk of tyranny if it means better social programs. You may, rightly, disagree.

Who gets to decide which colleges are "good"? Our government? I've already told you I don't trust them to make the right decisions. The way to weed out bad colleges is the same way that you weed out bad businesses. You don't give them your money. The way that you drive down the cost of college is not through government pressure, but through economic pressure. Supply/demand economics work. If you think a college is too expensive, you don't give that college your money.

Many people who go to for-profit colleges are fooled by them, which is their fault, but we shouldn't let that happen.

Didn't Obama institute the gainful employment rules, which prevented colleges from saddling students with too much debt in comparison with income?

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/08/10/education-dept-repeal-gainful-rules

98% of schools who failed were for-profit, which seems like it works fairly well. Those schools don't receive federal funding. Sounds good to me.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 10:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 10:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 9:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 8:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 8:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 7:11:00 PM (view original):
The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

I don't think we're really getting into the specifics with that case, I think we're talking more in generalities. That case actually went to SCOTUS and the baker prevailed in a narrow ruling (narrow in the scope of the opinion, not the votes, it was 7-2). It certainly didn't reverse the civil rights act. It just said that The Colorado commission acted with hostility towards the baker.

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

I say that immediately after saying that strikeout didn't show how the laws are used to discriminate. My bad. It does look that this was a case where the state did discriminate.

I still argue that laws themselves are good, just, and necessary. They just need to be applied that way.

Yes, that it why I brought up this specific case. Laws are mistreated all the time. Some laws are obviously necessary. Some are not. Anti-discrimination laws are not. They are even less necessary now than they were 45-50 years ago. I typically don't like using the calendar as justification for an argument, but in 2019 if a company truly discriminates it will be ripped to shreds with the massive number of information outlets we have today.

"They just need to be applied that way." This line sums up everything that I have been saying. The intent of the law is benevolent. It's application has proven to be shady on numerous occasions. As i've said, the market does a good job of policing true discrimination. There is not a need add unwarranted government infringement.

Any law can go bad if applied unjustly. That doesn’t mean the answer is no laws.

It’s 2019 and we still have racial discrimination. Sucks right? Unfortunately, the civil rights act is still necessary.

This is why we need as few laws as possible. I believe society is good as a whole. When something is police by laws, you put the power in the hands of a few. These few aren't guaranteed to be just, fair people. When you let society police an issue like this, now the enforcement is much more powerful and a multitude are deciding what is just and fair. This gives the people much more of a voice and doesn't infringe on freedoms.

The fact that we still have discrimination discrimination works against your argument for anti-discrimination laws. We have had the Civil Rights Act since '64. Racial prejudices will always exist. Put the power in the hands of the people. Obviously, leaving enforcement up to the government is not more effective.

We shouldn't ban murder because murder will still happen regardless.

The power has been in the hands of people, and it failed. Remember when we were allowed to own other humans?

I think we all can agree that some laws need to be in place. It's a societal consensus that murder is wrong and that we should have laws to protect people from murder. This is why I was hoping people on here were smart enough to realize this on their own without me having to type it, but I guess I was wrong.

Mentioning slavery here works against your argument that government intrusion was ethical. Jim Crow is another good example. Slaves were considered chattel by the US government. Laws were on the books to protect slave owners' "property". We then saw state sponsored racism by the hand of the government through the Jim Crow laws. Our government screws things up, Change in America happens because our great citizens speak up when there is injustice. Our government likes to swoop in and take all of the credit, but real, productive change happens through the hands of the people.

Remember, both scenarios that you mention fit within my definition of the role of government. Government has a responsibility to protect people from physical harm by others. Both murder and slavery causes harm to others.

Discrimination does not cause physical harm to others in most cases. In the cases that it does, we already have laws on the book for those people's protection. We don't need redundant laws. We have too many of those as is. For example, hate crime legislation. All violent crimes are hate crimes. If you beat or torture someone whether or not we have "hate crime" legislation, you go to jail. If you murder someone regardless of whether we have "hate crime" legislation, you go to jail.

The murder comment was me being a bit cheeky, but my point was that the fact that a law doesn't completely solve an issue doesn't mean that we shouldn't have said law.

Jim Crow laws were local and state laws, so that point is irrelevant. The people can only engineer so much change without the help of the government, that's why it is important that the people elect leaders who support change so the government can implement it. The leadup to the civil war was a failure in government, but that's what I mean by 'better government' not no government. We can handle things differently.

I disagree government should only serve to protect against literal physical harm. Discrimination can cause harm, such as financial loss, instability, and stigma.

Of course no law is going to solve every problem associated to that law. What we have to determine is if a law is necessary to solve the problem and anti-discrimination laws aren't necessary. As far as Jim Crow and other similar laws, whether they are local, state, or federalis irrelevant. They are all forms of government.

The left is going to rely on the government so much for "change" that it will reach a point where they get "change" that they didn't bargain for. Growing government is dangerous business.

It's not the governments job to protect your wallet, reputation, or feelings. I have no idea what you mean by instability.

If you want to show me someone discriminatory, I will fly to Kansas and fight them with you. We'll go out for a nice eggplant dinner afterwards. We don't need to the government to protect all of its little sheep.

I think anti discrimination laws aren't necessary, but they are helpful. If the Jim Crow laws aren't federal, that goes against your argument about tyrannical government.

And you are going to try to get meaningful change without the help of government, and fail. There needs to be a meeting in the middle.

By instability, I just mean less options in terms of business. I disagree, the government should help people with those things.

We shouldn't have to fight against every restaurant banning service to black people. The civil rights movement already did that. Seems to be working pretty well, since I don't see many restaurants ban access to black people anymore. I just don't agree with your argument here.

Also, I hate eggplant.

Once again, the government shouldn't protect people from themselves. If you're stupid enough to pay to go to a bad school, shame on you for not doing your research. The government shouldn't bail you out.

I will have to research "gainful employment rules", but based on your description they sound like more government intrusion. Each degree carries a certain fiscal value. Humanities degrees are virtually useless in the job market. They carry almost no value, so you should spend almost no money on them. The government shouldn't shield you if you from making a bad choice. It's your responsibility to do your research before you sign up.

Very good. The free market works. I am actually not against "for profit" schools. Almost every university is for profit in nature. Google how much money Harvard has. It's the consumers job to decide if the establishment provides value worthy of the cost.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 10:50:00 PM (view original):
Once again, the government shouldn't protect people from themselves. If you're stupid enough to pay to go to a bad school, shame on you for not doing your research. The government shouldn't bail you out.

I will have to research "gainful employment rules", but based on your description they sound like more government intrusion. Each degree carries a certain fiscal value. Humanities degrees are virtually useless in the job market. They carry almost no value, so you should spend almost no money on them. The government shouldn't shield you if you from making a bad choice. It's your responsibility to do your research before you sign up.

Very good. The free market works. I am actually not against "for profit" schools. Almost every university is for profit in nature. Google how much money Harvard has. It's the consumers job to decide if the establishment provides value worthy of the cost.

I disagree with the first part, if a corporation is running a scam that can hurt people, the government should step in.

I would wager that most going to for-profit colleges aren't going for a degree in the humanities.

I think you struggle to organize thoughts when we have multiple conversations going at a time. I do too. The mention of Jim Crow laws as an example were for the purposes of showing government shortcomings and that the free market does a much better job than the government.

Since today's topic has been strictly about government's role in business will keep the topic specific to that. An impact to one's wallet has a much bigger impact than any law could ever have. We see this all time. Pay attention to how quickly most companies cave to boycott threats. The government has never had such quick results. Change does not need the government. The left wants it to need the government. The irony is the left is very good at bringing about change on their own. They are very quick to assemble whenever they see an issue.

As far as people not refusing service to protected classes, you are making an unsubstantiated correlation. There is NO evidence that we wouldn't have achieved the same results without the Civil Rights Act. Admittedly, the act may have sped along the issue, but natural progress is better 100 % of the time. It creates a much truer society.

I thought eggplant was the steak of vegetarians, but I am glad to hear that because I do to. Well, you pick the food after we fend off the Kansas bigots.

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 10:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 10:50:00 PM (view original):
Once again, the government shouldn't protect people from themselves. If you're stupid enough to pay to go to a bad school, shame on you for not doing your research. The government shouldn't bail you out.

I will have to research "gainful employment rules", but based on your description they sound like more government intrusion. Each degree carries a certain fiscal value. Humanities degrees are virtually useless in the job market. They carry almost no value, so you should spend almost no money on them. The government shouldn't shield you if you from making a bad choice. It's your responsibility to do your research before you sign up.

Very good. The free market works. I am actually not against "for profit" schools. Almost every university is for profit in nature. Google how much money Harvard has. It's the consumers job to decide if the establishment provides value worthy of the cost.

I disagree with the first part, if a corporation is running a scam that can hurt people, the government should step in.

I would wager that most going to for-profit colleges aren't going for a degree in the humanities.

Our court systems already do a good job arbitrating these cases. We don't need bans on "for profit" colleges because some are bad.

I was generalizing college value more than anything. As I said, almost every college is for profit in nature.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 11:02:00 PM (view original):
I think you struggle to organize thoughts when we have multiple conversations going at a time. I do too. The mention of Jim Crow laws as an example were for the purposes of showing government shortcomings and that the free market does a much better job than the government.

Since today's topic has been strictly about government's role in business will keep the topic specific to that. An impact to one's wallet has a much bigger impact than any law could ever have. We see this all time. Pay attention to how quickly most companies cave to boycott threats. The government has never had such quick results. Change does not need the government. The left wants it to need the government. The irony is the left is very good at bringing about change on their own. They are very quick to assemble whenever they see an issue.

As far as people not refusing service to protected classes, you are making an unsubstantiated correlation. There is NO evidence that we wouldn't have achieved the same results without the Civil Rights Act. Admittedly, the act may have sped along the issue, but natural progress is better 100 % of the time. It creates a much truer society.

I thought eggplant was the steak of vegetarians, but I am glad to hear that because I do to. Well, you pick the food after we fend off the Kansas bigots.

Fair enough, with extreme support, a boycott is enough to slow down one company at a time, but that is excruciatingly slow change that a government bill could change instantly.

Sure, but the Civil Rights Act certainly helped, as you admitted. Natural progress is not always better. If the north had allowed the south to continue to own slaves, EVENTUALLY the south would have stopped enslaving people but that would have been an extremely slow process that would hurt the south long term. And it would mean more generations that are enslaved.

I mean, just because I am a vegetarian doesn't mean that I love a bunch of awful vegetables. I am not a crazy person, lol.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 11:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 10:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 10:50:00 PM (view original):
Once again, the government shouldn't protect people from themselves. If you're stupid enough to pay to go to a bad school, shame on you for not doing your research. The government shouldn't bail you out.

I will have to research "gainful employment rules", but based on your description they sound like more government intrusion. Each degree carries a certain fiscal value. Humanities degrees are virtually useless in the job market. They carry almost no value, so you should spend almost no money on them. The government shouldn't shield you if you from making a bad choice. It's your responsibility to do your research before you sign up.

Very good. The free market works. I am actually not against "for profit" schools. Almost every university is for profit in nature. Google how much money Harvard has. It's the consumers job to decide if the establishment provides value worthy of the cost.

I disagree with the first part, if a corporation is running a scam that can hurt people, the government should step in.

I would wager that most going to for-profit colleges aren't going for a degree in the humanities.

Our court systems already do a good job arbitrating these cases. We don't need bans on "for profit" colleges because some are bad.

I was generalizing college value more than anything. As I said, almost every college is for profit in nature.

Not really, and it isn't banning for profit colleges, it is a stop to providing federal funding to colleges that saddle students with far more debt than income.

I am not against colleges making money, per say, but I am against colleges making money at the expense of students. It's OK for Harvard to make money, because, as I understand it, they provide a pretty good place to learn.

A government bill doesn't change mindsets. Public pressure does. We see it all the time.

Remember, slavery is a poor example to use with me. The government had a responsibility to intervene as people were being physically harmed and their freedoms were being trampled on. The problem with using pressure from the citizens in the north to end slavery is that Northerners really didn't give a **** if southerners owned slaves.

Kale salad it is for us.

I don't have a problem with not providing federal funding to "for profit" schools. I actually don't believe any private school should receive federal funding. We're $20T in debt, We can't afford it. As far as the debt to income ratio. I am anti-student loan as a rule anyways. They are unnecessary for people and are going to lead to the next recession. Obama made a big mistake with his government takeover of student loans. As to your specific point, the loans don't come from the colleges. The colleges aren't saddling kids with any debt. They put a price tag on their school and people make a choice on whether or not to attend.

The market does a really good job of dictating which schools have more money. Harvard is recognized as one of the better schools in the country, therefore it makes more money. The last school that I coached was not a very good school and almost had to close its doors. It has since hired a new president and is getting better quickly and guess what. Its financial situation is getting better quickly.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 11:19:00 PM (view original):
A government bill doesn't change mindsets. Public pressure does. We see it all the time.

Remember, slavery is a poor example to use with me. The government had a responsibility to intervene as people were being physically harmed and their freedoms were being trampled on. The problem with using pressure from the citizens in the north to end slavery is that Northerners really didn't give a **** if southerners owned slaves.

Kale salad it is for us.

I believe that people in America should not be discriminated against, regardless of race, gender, religion, or preferences.

But I think you missed the point about slavery. Natural process is not always the best way to do things.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 11:29:00 PM (view original):
I don't have a problem with not providing federal funding to "for profit" schools. I actually don't believe any private school should receive federal funding. We're $20T in debt, We can't afford it. As far as the debt to income ratio. I am anti-student loan as a rule anyways. They are unnecessary for people and are going to lead to the next recession. Obama made a big mistake with his government takeover of student loans. As to your specific point, the loans don't come from the colleges. The colleges aren't saddling kids with any debt. They put a price tag on their school and people make a choice on whether or not to attend.

The market does a really good job of dictating which schools have more money. Harvard is recognized as one of the better schools in the country, therefore it makes more money. The last school that I coached was not a very good school and almost had to close its doors. It has since hired a new president and is getting better quickly and guess what. Its financial situation is getting better quickly.

The issue is that for profit colleges hire experts at convincing low-income students to take out loans to afford to go to their school, and don't provide the best education or income after graduation.