Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (6252)	9/16/2007 12:57:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Well in a sense perhaps they should be able to make decisions about the business they allow. Its not unconstitutional, or generally against federal law, and in many cases such efforts don't run afoul of state law, so in stictly legal terms its ok. And if the people of the locality really want to restrict a business than its their decision (if it isn't otherwise illegal). I have respect for the idea of democracy, and also the idea of deciding many things on a local level. But I would be against most, perhaps almost any, such efforts. I think people should generally be free to buy and sell to and from who they want to buy and sell from. Also if many local areas, esp. in this case a highly populated local area, decide that they want to impose all sorts of unique local restrictions on businesses it can get hard for business to deal with the situation. Well straight out forbidding them might be simple enough, even if it does reduce freedom and competition, but in many cases its a complex mix of different local requirements and procedures. That winds up making things more expensive. For example look at all the different requirements for gasoline blends across the country. That does increase the price people pay for gasoline, esp. in places like CA.