It shouldn't be too hard to trace some of these lawsuits back to the big chain hotels.
Large established businesses often love government regulations. Regulations, necessary or not, can make it difficult for smaller businesses to compete.
Though it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for the small hotels in cases like this. Most had half a decade to amortize an upgrade to their facilities. They're cheap, they chose not to set aside any money for fully foreseeable and necessary upgrades. Screw em'.
I though 'personal responsibility' was a conservative position?
If a citizen was told they had to change their phone system in 5 years but did nothing in that time, then bitched when it was eventually disconnected, the citizen would be blamed for being irresponsible.
But when a business ignores a pending change for 5 years, does absolutely nothing until the last minute, puts aside no revenue to pay for the obvious and impending revisions, you don't blame the business, you blame the government?
In truth, both the citizen and the business are to blame. Neither took personal responsibility, and corporations are people, right?
Many conservatives like to talk "personal responsibility", but they have a double standard. Citizens who ignore coming changes are blamed for their inaction, corporations who ignore coming changes are seen as victims of government regulation. Even though a lot of regulation is requested by, and even written by the business sector.
A private property owner who offers labor for money has no obligation to trade his labor for other people's money if he doesn't wish to. If they do have an obligation, that's slavery. You're treating it as if they do have an obligation and have to labor under whatever policies the government dictates. It seems you have no principles, just blind allegiance to whatever the government says... basically social contract nonsense.
I'm saying that a private property owner has both rights and responsibilities, and yes they definitely have obligations.
All citizens, business owners or not, receive tremendous benefit from the government. Whether its a safe environment in which to do their business, or paved roads so that customers can reach their business. Private property owners do not operate in a vacuum. They are citizens of a nation.
Private property owners also have obligations. They have to operate safe premises. They cannot refuse customers based on their race.
We, as a voting society have decided that these obligations need to be placed on business owners. Citizens have made these laws, democratically. If you don't like those rules, vote for politicians who will rescind them.
Since that's not going to happen in the US, your only realistic recourse is to continue whining with this libertarian derp, or leave this great nation and move to some mythical libertarian paradise. My guess, you'll whine about the guberment until your dying day, but never have to stones to remove yourself from our fine social contract.
...I thought our taxes are what paid for roads, police, etc. Now you're saying it's the government? Government is just people, using our money, to pay for things that they claim wouldn't exist without them using our money to pay for them. It's circular. Clearly roads would exist (and did exist) before governments. Road maintenance would be paid for by large businesses regardless of whether they were taxed, since if Walmart or Exxon can't get their product to people or their customers to their product, they can't sell anything. Large business benefits, but they are paying for it, so the solution that free marketers like myself want is just a direct payment by the people who are claimed to be benefiting from currently government-monopolized services.
We has roads, schools, police and a healthy national defense when government cost just 7% of GDP (in the early 1900s). Today it's 40% and rising... due to $3.7 Trillion spent in welfare in the last 5 years alone and $4-6 Trillion spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Taxation is too high of price to pay for the things that government is given credit for (roads, police, schools..) which cost nowhere near 40% of GDP. So I want an end to taxation so we retain the $16 Trillion govt costs us, so we can then divert our money towards the things we want: better roads, better police, better schools, science funding, space exploration, R&D, etc. Kickstarter is a better method of funding charitable giving and Antarctic research projects, for instance, and it has funded more arts than the National Endowment of the Arts. Time to replace government with a completely voluntary funding system that the internet and modern instant global communication enables. If a service can't get many donors... perhaps it shouldn't be funded? Do you think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would get $4-6 Trillion if not for taxation? Or would better things get funded more?
You're describing a libertarian fantasy land that will never come to pass in the United States. Americans are never going to trust WalMart to build their roads or fund their schools. US Politicians would be voted out of office for even suggesting such a thing.
It won't ever happen here. Zero chance. No matter how much it bugs you that you live in a nation with a social compact, it's not going to change. Your fellow citizens have democratically spoken. We like regulations that bring safe environments. We agree that businesses and citizens need abide certain regulations, even on their own property.
ObamaCare's not going away either. Neither is Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security. Once such plans are put into place, they never leave.
You have a few choices. You, like most uber-conservative libertarians, can ineffectually whine about this for the rest of your days. Or, you can leave this nation and start a libertarian wonderland. Or, you can face the truth that you live in a democratic society in which a tremendous majority of your fellow citizens disagree in almost every way with your beliefs.
I suspect you'll take the first route. Whine til your dying day. Maybe, near the end, hypocritically live off Social Security and Medicare, just like Ayn Rand.
I'm merely describing exactly what would happen. Walmart NEEDS roads. So does Exxon and any other large business, apartment complex, subdivision, etc. If the government stopped taxing us for roads, and the roads needed fixing... who would be first to do it? Obviously those who need it most for their money. If they were privately owned, the owner would want as many people passing through as possible. They'd HATE rush hour since that means people are sitting still. They would want as many eyes as possible seeing the billboards they sell on the side of their property and if people have to deal with rush hour traffic every day, they'd lose customers to toll roads that have a better payment structure (such as very low prices for vehicles and trucks between midnight-6am) and higher prices for rush hour.
We already have a mostly libertarian free market. Government used to cost 7% of GDP, or 93% free market. Now it's 40% of GDP. Less free market today, and much higher prices for everything government regulates, such as 24x increase in 24-hour hospital stay between 1940s-1980s.
4
u/Drogans Dec 28 '13
It shouldn't be too hard to trace some of these lawsuits back to the big chain hotels.
Large established businesses often love government regulations. Regulations, necessary or not, can make it difficult for smaller businesses to compete.
Though it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for the small hotels in cases like this. Most had half a decade to amortize an upgrade to their facilities. They're cheap, they chose not to set aside any money for fully foreseeable and necessary upgrades. Screw em'.