- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
If it was government intervention in private business that would be a different story. Then you should care.
However, this wasn't government intervention. If a business (like Amazon) thinks getting rid of a product is in their best interest they should be allowed to do so.
The initiative passed which should concern Objectivists, especially considering the effect it has had upon businesses and persons who's beliefs were, then, declared inconsequential.
Amazon may not be a government agency, but it IS large enough to have a measurable effect upon our freedoms, unfortunately.
Why would I care about some declarations regarding "beliefs" (mine or others)?
perhaps there are other details in the marriage initiative that restrict freedom, rather than allow more freedom?
At least, I still have the right to boycott Amazon, Target and any other liberal organization that chooses to advance policies that I disagree with...at least, until the government decrees that I must patronize these groups (Directive 10-289, anyone?).
Here is a good place to remind everyone there is no such thing as "separation of church and state." State is the policy arm of religion. It is subservient to the basic tenants of some religion (the Napoleonic Code is different from the Constitution of the U.S. which is different than the laws upheld in Iran, Iraq, Russia, China or Saudi Arabia).
Returning to the original question, Amazon has no obligation to carry out any particular business decision, It has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns for share holders. If individuals are offended by any practice they have the right to take their business elsewhere. Just a a caterer, a photographer or any other business has the right to decline to do business with any individual for any reason (though doing so may be bad for business).
Personally, I think the bukini is a great looking outfit and the pictured Halloween costume looked great and fit well within the idiocy of costume wearing (I have thought the same thing with other "mocking" costumes such as nun costumes and Jedi suits, Hindu garb etc).
Add to this the group on this forum who parrot the same conservative religious doctrine and then claim to be atheist. And no matter what one says, A=A. One cannot claim A=A except when it conflicts with ones personal belief system...
To return to one of my earliest stipulations, marriage is a function of religion, not government and I can see no reason to "license" it. Register your contract with each other if you are so inclined, but a license is unnecessary (and I read once only began to be law in the 20's (but I don't know where I read that)).
A friend of mine posited that society could benefit if at age 20 or so you married someone about 40, then at 40ish that marriage dissolved and you married someone 20ish. At 60ish the second marriage would dissolve and you would marry someone 60ish. His thinking such an arrangement would facilitate emotional and financial stability and benefit children.f I can see lots of good in such a plan.
You lost me with "the plan to benefit society."
The individual should make his own plan to benefit
him or herself.
To paraphrase somebody or other about something or other: you may not be interested in society but society is interested in you.
As far as the three marriage plan, I think it is interesting for a lot of reasons and -- as I would with governmental programs -- I think planned obsolescence may beat having to fight for divorce and making lawyers rich and clogging up the courts. Just build the dissolution settlement into the original contract (subject to review every 5 years to remain current with the realities of life.
Any plan for me or others with an expected benefit for society requires someone to enforce or encourage compliance. Time and time again someone else is deciding what is best for the individual. It doesn't work unless it is a parent guiding a child.
It would be great if marriages lasted "'til death do us part" (in very old age), but about half end differently. If we had a five year renewable marriage contract for example, I believe fewer marriages would end in divorce. Those that did not renew, could at least move on without the typical animosity the current, adversarial system engenders.
There are always alternatives.
or the irreconcilable differences. The amicable seperation would be more common and that is a good thing.
Have a good day!
Thong bikini with a bag over your head?
Now let's all have a sack race to the beach!
Hope the eye holes stay lined up--conk! ouch!-- with all that hopping around.
It definitely deserves a pretend flogging from someone wearing the male version of the costume.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
The article doesn't mention the nun costumes, I did personal research to find that...
Paste the link into the box marked "URL (optional)"
Since you are the author of this blog, you may still be able to use the edit function at the top of the page and do so.
I don't know if an objectivist should care; it is their business. I am satisfied to let the market forces take their course one way or the other. I would like to see more competition and suspect as time goes by Amazon will receive it. I understand Walmart is seriously gearing up their online operation.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I certainly agree with you on the market forces comment. I found myself feeling more enraged than I would expect when seeing this article then finding what I did on the nun costumes. I am an Amazon shareholder, and of course have purchased a ridiculous amount of products from them over the years. I actually wrote to their corporate office my displeasure in their choice to do such a thing and threatened to liquidate my stock and buy elsewhere, hoping to hear an official response. I'm mostly confused by my own overreaction to this since I am a complete atheist... Wanted to hear others' opinions.
I have no reason to doubt the message. You may wish to talk to an administrator, or consider becoming a producer if you find it of sufficient value.
I have scanned your history, found nothing blatantly offensive and that you have less than 100 points. If I recall correctly and it is still the case, you gain more options and privileges once you acquire 100 points. I will help. +1 :)
Yes, the PC world has run amok and I find it quite unsettling as well, but I would not want people telling me how to run my business, who to sell to, or what to sell. So if you are a student of objectivism and respect the choices Hank Rearden and others in AS made... you see where I am going with this. I am assuming you have seen the movies or read the book or you would not be here...
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. I will answer what I can.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I have read a few Rand's writings, including Atlas, and I would vehemently defend Amazon's right to ban or not ban anything they choose. I am only talking about the power of free choice on the part of consumers to rebel. What I worry about is the idea that one of the most successful entrepreneurial ventures in history (Amazon) would fall prey to the false political correctness of trying not to offend only one group of people and completely ignoring another, probably out of fear of physical repercussions. Obviously Catholics are not going to rise up and attack an Amazon warehouse. Yes, this is the world we live in now, however it is just disheartening when I see a business, who's job it is to simply increase value for its investors, make terrible political choices. Just makes me sad...
Whereas an enterprising capitalist in this country may fear offending Muslims peaceful and/or bad, unconstitutional Sharia law enabling progressives are only afraid of hurting their tender little feelings--the kinda feel good feelings too many Americans only use to vote with.
So if selling a Costume of a sexy burka is a danger to society, that must be admitting that Islam is a danger to society.
And, if Islam is a danger to society, then Trump would be right in requiring tougher vetting of muslums.
On the other hand, I fear what is happening here is that we ( our handlers) are saying Islam is a protected victim group, and Christians are fair game for pursicution.
After all, Christians believe that not even polititions, should lie, steal, or murder. Nor should Government dictate what your own moral conscience should accept or not.
And even Rand would agree that Capitalism allows one to choose to whom you offer your products and services to, and for what price.
Objectivism has Everything to do with your personal beliefs. A philosophy that you believe in, especially a rational one, is a basis for one's life actions and responses. If it isn't then it is less useful. As to atheism, one cannot truly call oneself an Objectivist and not be an atheist, as atheism is an intrinsic part of the philosophy. It is true, however, that one can adopt any part of the Objectivist philosophy and and make it part of one's rules to live by, but strictly speaking, one could not be called an Objectivist.
Here's one for you... what if "intelligent life" was a genetic experiment on Venus 672,500 years ago, and shipped to other planets to spread intelligence before the planet killed itself? Can you prove or disprove it?
Personally - if you are atheist because of the "sky daddy throwing lightening bolts" myth, then you kinda sorta DON'T get it. Belief systems WAY predate a partial set of 1800 year old writings by some desert Bedouin ancestors. And if you don't BELIEVE in a Theism - that still means you DO have beliefs.
And trying to link ANY beliefs about the truly unknown and objectivism falls flat. Objectivism is about what we KNOW - and if you KNOW what happened 672,500 years ago, or what caused intelligence to develop - beyond a shadow of a doubt - I want your secret squirrel time travel device.
As to a higher power: I can assert nothing except what science has learned so far. When I was born the depths to which quantum physics has gone would have been unimaginable. Since then more knowledge has accumulated at a faster and faster rate. Will the discovery of the "God Particle" lead to a clue about creation? What about a hundred years from now - or a thousand years from now? I exclude nothing, but I don't include anything that is unprovable relying strictly on faith. As my grandpa said many times to me, "Vait a vile and ve shall see."
I find the whole anti-sex attitude annoying, but it is also an opportunity and someone will fill it if the law doesn't prevent it.
As we all hold that individuals and organizations of individuals outside the odd organization called government should be able to act on their own reasoning, such as it may or may not be, it is literally none of our business what Amazon choses to sell or not sell as long as it is doing no demonstrable harm and not by initiation of force violating anyone's rights.
That si the key point. .
1. I agree wholeheartedly that Amazon should absolutely have the right to ban or not ban anything they want. One poster discussed the idea that perhaps Amazon simply has a standing policy of banning something if it gets enough negative feedback, regardless. I can at least see some logic coming from Amazon if this were the case. The number of Catholics complaining about a nun costume are likely quite small, so it would make sense to only ban the burka. I can reduce my personal discontent with Amazon if this is the case.
2. Not sure why an objectivist would care about gay marriage. Marriage should simply be a contract between two consenting individuals capable of making a rational decision. Government should have nothing to do with it. Regardless of how weird "gayness" might seem to a straight person, why would you care? The only reason an Objectivist should care about this is if there is property being taken from you (taxes) and given to promote an agenda. Doesn't matter what that agenda is, nothing should ever be forcefully taken from an individual to promote something to society. Marrying animals cannot work however, because they cannot enter into a contract. You can say you are married to your cat all you want, but it's not a contract.
3. I consider myself both an atheist and agnostic simultaneously. I read something about this once and feel like it is the most logical solution. I am agnostic because I do not "know" there isn't a higher being. I am atheist because I "believe" there is not, based on evidence presented to my senses. In my opinion one cannot be an Objectivist and believe in a higher power, but at the same time, because I am an Objectivist, I don't care if someone else combines their religious dogma with Objectivism, as long as they are not taking away any of my freedoms or property. Additionally, I cannot know what another individual has experienced with their own senses. If someone claims to have "spoken to Jesus", how can I prove them wrong? While I might certainly "believe" they are lying or mistaken due to hallucination, doesn't mean I am right. I can only experience what my own rational senses and thoughts tell me.
4. While a "sexy burka" costume might sound like a contradiction in terms, if it were worn by Candice Swanepoel, it would automatically fall under the uncontradictable "sexy" category. This is fact and cannot be unproven, even by an Objectivist... ;)
Just pop on line and order from a retailer that does sell what you want.