1X2 said:
Show how. I don’t see anything in your discussion.
Again, had you actually read my "discussion," you would already know the answer. But I'll say it again in a different way, and hopefully that will be more clear.
1X2 said:
This is different than what I have a right to expect at my home (but only inasmuch as I don't have to allow anyone to visit); i.e., you can't visit if you're armed. I don't have to allow anyone on my property (that I know of). But if I do allow you to visit, I have to allow you to be armed (or have a firearm in your vehicle in my driveway, etc.), I have to allow you the right to free speech, and allow you all your other rights. The employers have to allow SOMEONE on the property, otherwise they board up the business and go home. This is the same idea as "if you hold yourself open to serve the public, you cannot discriminate". You may reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, but the reasons for refusal are limited.
In your world,
Why do you get to have the choice to deny my right to peaceably assemble, but have no right to deny my right to bear arms, free speech, and so on? That, again, is completely inconsistent. "I can't deny you your rights, except the one that allows you to peaceably assemble... in my home." So what makes that right to peaceably assemble so special that it can be denied?
This is a pathetic semantic game on your part. Most of the corporations in the United States of any size recognize the phrase “Customer Service”.
The only one playing a semantic game (as I'll show later) is you. Businesses don't try to have good customer service (and quite frankly, some have lousy CS) because they're kind to the bottom of their heart. They do it because they want you to continue to be a customer, and they want new customers. Translated into economic terms, they want more money.
Your typing so does not make it so.
No, but the facts do make it so (more on that below).
By serving the public, the business makes money. If the public was not served, the business would not make money (or, at least, not as much money ). Students of business with even marginal acumen know this.
Your statement implies that businesses place "serving the public" as a priority. It is not, largely, the case. They are there to make money, and they do that by giving consumers what they want. You may as well say that if I buy a slice of pizza from a guy for $1.50, I am doing it because I feel sorry for the guy and want to give him money.
No. I want a slice of pizza because I'm hungry, I'm in the mood, whatever it may be, I think it is worth the money, and so, I buy the pizza. Because I want one- not because I feel sorry for the pizza guy.
This is totally backward. As an INTENDED benefit of serving the public, businesses that serve the public well, make money.
You're mistaking intent for consequence. People who are in business intend to make money. They want to make money. They do this buy "serving" the public. They are not, as you strongly imply, doing it for the greater good. A business that is losing money will not say, "man, this donut shop is really essential for the few customers I have- they really love my donuts. I guess I'll have to take the monetary hit to continue to serve the public." People do not largely start businesses because they are altruistic. They do it because of the money. If that means being nice to people in their dealings, they'll do it.
Businesses "serve the public" as much as you "serve the restaurant" when you pay money to get food.
Businesses also sell services (the root word would be, I think “serve”). I believe it’s fair to say that businesses would rather sell services, they make more money that way. Companies that are able to bundle their goods WITH services do so because the margins (properly managed) are better, so they make more money.
See, I know you don't know what you're talking about because you don't know that a "good," in economic terms (which is what we're talking about), INCLUDES services. I'm not playing some semantic game. I'm playing facts and established economic definitions and theory (and a good dose of reality).
If the business doesn’t do it for the customer, who is paying the business? If the business has no customers, there is no business.
I don't even really understand your question. The point is that the goal of most businesses is to make money. That's it.
Again, they'll do what they have to to do it. This means giving the customer what they want. This is, however, NOT equivalent to meaning that their doing it for the sake of honor or altruism. They're doing it because they're benefiting from making the customer happy. The customer gets happy, and everyone wins. Let me give you an example of that.
Recently, the iPhone dropped in price considerably, only a couple of months after its initial release. People were PISSED. So, Jobs said, "okay, look, if you bought the iPhone from this date to that, you'll get 100 dollars worth of credit for Apple Products if you didn't apply for blah blah." Anyway.
Long story short- you think they did it "for the public good"? NO! They did it because so many customers were angry, Apple didn't want to jeopardize its profits in the future. Jobs didn't do it because "he was a nice guy who wanted to serve the public."
There, I’ve found you an example. Most state and local governments have them. Now you find me a law that says that I have to allow anyone to sit in my back yard.
What's your point? I'm not discussing about how the law is. I'm discussing how it should be. If you want to talk about how the world is, you don't have to discuss it (or debate it, rather) in the first place.
BTW, that you label yourself a Libertarian is of no import to the discussion.
1x2
It is of great importance, when one considers that others have attempted to assault my position/principles. You can't successfully challenge principles when you have no idea what they are in the first place, as seems to be the case.
Again, I'm not particularly concerned with this particular case- I'm concerned about the general application of principles. I'm concerned about the big picture. Apparently, some people here have very... twisted ideas of what liberty and freedom (and consequently, the libertarian position) is about. They have little to no understanding of economics and economic theory, yet they are interested in making statements like the ones you have.
). Students of business with even marginal acumen know this.