You didn't know that, didja? Well, according to Kim du Toit, that's exactly the case. But first, a couple of round-ups since I've neglected this category lately.
First up: When Called. It's your standard set of justifications for not only enslaving you, but compelling you, by force, to give up your life for the state -- but only after an "agonizing and bitter debate" and a final edict by "We the People." He's willing to hand his sons over, and I suppose that because of such a "charitable" overture, he's also willing to man a firing squad if your son chooses instead not to so self-sacrifice. Lovely; but that's "conservatism," lock, stock, & barrel for ya. Least he's honest about it, I s'pose. Most of the comments are of the 'atta-boy' or 'preach-it-brother' variety, which, given the general aptitude of his readership, is no surprise.
Bill St. Clair memorialized one of Kim's comments from one if Kim's rare readers in possession of independent rational faculties. It's actually a speech given by Daniel Webster before Congress in 1814. You should read that, if for nothing else, to get a taste of what sort of men used to be holding the offices most people are out wasting their time electing, today. Drizzten has has a treatment as well, worth the read.
From another post:
I’m getting heartily sick of people who think they can do whatever the hell they want, and get away with it, all under the mantra of “respecting my culture” and all that jive. Like those Muslim cabdrivers in Minneapolis who refused to take passengers because they thought the people were carrying liquor in their bags.
By which, he means: owners of businesses deciding for themselves who they wish to do business with. It gets worse.
My question: Why haven’t these pricks been fired? And don’t give me that jive about “sensitivity”—the only sensitivity I care about is that of my trigger finger, and let me tell you, it’s itching right now.
Itching to kill people who don't wish to associate with or do business with him or others.
I have news for these people: your “culture” doesn’t mean sh*t. You’re in America now, and in America, our culture is such that we don’t care if our passengers are carrying a bottle of Scotch. If that upsets your sensitivities too much, feel free to find another line of work, or another country where your sensitivities are catered to—in the above case, Saudi Arabia comes to mind.
I guess you only get to own a cab in America, in Kim's world, if you submit to Kim's cultural norms.
At some point, I might be in a position of a passenger denied service, and let me tell you this: if some guy refuses to provide me a paid service, just because he thinks I’ve broken some nonsensical and inconsequential taboo of his tribe, I’m going to kick his ass all over the goddamn block.
Inconsequential to Kim, which, because he's in a particular geographic location, overrules the wishes of the cab's actual owner.
I mean it. And the companies who employ these tools had better take note, as well. If I were the City officials who grant these companies their operating licenses, I’d have the licenses suspended—not just for the cabbies, but for the entire business—because they are in contravention of their terms of operation.
Their terms of operation, or Kim's terms of operation? Of course, this is all just typical republican/conservative chest beating. Embarrassing.
It’s time we brought that thinking back into our so-called capitalist system, and eliminated the nonsense.
Kim hasn't the slightest clue as to the contradiction in terms he's just written. I'll leave that one a mystery for y'all to work out on your own. Hint: what is capitalism?
Now for the final entry. Kim's in India on business, and he's not impressed. I've no beef with that, of course, but here's one of his assessments:
Front page: an entire development of houses and factories was just bulldozed at dawn, because not one, not one of the buildings had obtained the proper building permits prior to construction—most had no permit at all, and the remaining few percent were forged. Imagine finding a couple of factories going up next door to your cozy little subdivision, without any zoning variances or permits, with no infrastructure like roads and sewage systems being built to handle the new demand. This, my friends, is what happens when you have rampant libertarianism, where anyone can do whatever the hell they want, without any form of government supervision. (Well, sometimes the government gets off its big fat butt and does something—but it should be noted that the aforementioned houses and factories had been standing, and occupied, for a year before the ‘dozers moved in.) All that investment money? Down the tubes.
You know what? Though temptation is fierce, I'll refrain form labeling Kim something I know he's not. It's ignorance, which, in the context of his exposure to ideas on a daily basis, is far less excusable.
You might also like
Please spread the word
I'll refrain form labeling Kim something I know he's not.
I'll admit to being a bit puzzled as to why you think he's not, but I guess you know him better than I do.
In any case, it seems that he's suffering the consequences of the purge from his site of those still within shouting distance of reality: he's now free to float off in any direction his whim takes him, and there's no-one to reel him back in, even if that's what he wants.
Your argument about the cab drivers might have some weight if most of them owned their own cabs. But they don't. They essentially rent them from the cab company, which most likely doesn't want the bad publicity.
My argument about the cabs focuses on the fact that Kim du Toit doesn't own them.
As usual, you've state your position in a rather uncompromising way. That's ok with me.
Regarding the cab drivers not wishing to carry people they suspect of carrying liquor, I wish to comment on the laws that are usually in place in most cities regarding whom a cab driver can pick up. It generally isn't left up to the driver's complete discretion and there are parameters that all drivers need to know in order to get their license.
If he's really upset by the moslem driver who did this, he should investigate the law and if the same thing happens to him again, invoke that law if it supports him.
We all have rights but once we engage ouselves in a livlihood that interacts with the public to such a degree as a cab driver's does, our rights to do as we please must be weighed against the rights of the public who expect a certain service without their privacy being unduly infringed. Most laws dealing with taxi cabs are very explicit in delineating these expectations.
That said, revealing what's in your shopping bag should not be a requirement for service from a cab driver.
In a free culture, a requirement for service in my cab would amount to any bloody thing that I took in mind.
"That said, revealing what's in your shopping bag should not be a requirement for service from a cab driver."
Are you okay with it being a requirement for service from an airline pilot?
I wonder if Kim is. In any case, you're making the same kind of mistake as Rich is describing.