|
|
#91
10-09-2007, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] To clarify: You are asking why being a 'racist' isn't illegal? [/ QUOTE ] I am arguing that people should be legally permitted to freely form associations based any criteria they want, even irrational (including racist) ones. [/ QUOTE ] They are, the KKK is not an illegal group to belong to. However, if you look at say Augusta in terms of woman, well the law isn't settled in that area yet, and I really do not know enough about it. This is first amendment territoy and involve different tests and arguments. [/ QUOTE ] Here we go. He's arguing normatively, and you're running to what the law says. Guess what, the dispute isn't over what US law says, it's over the "rightness" or "wrongness" of that law. If I say people should be permitted to smoke pot, would you respond that "well, the law says pot is illegal"? [/ QUOTE ] No, I would not say that. [/ QUOTE ] Yet that's basically what you just did. The only difference is that in this particular case, the law you ran to "isn't settled yet." I haven't decided yet whether or not you should be able to be friends with your next door neighbor. Do you think my upcoming decision is legitimately meaningful? [/ QUOTE ] Isn't settled yet goes to the current makeup of the court. My actual point was that I don't know, because I don't know, as a reasonist I have no problem with pleading ignorance and instead of stating an opinion that I feel is not properly grounded I just didn't answer. I see no problem with stating I don't know, then stating this is the answer because my gut says so. [/ QUOTE ] This is what the previous poster menat when he said you were hilariously missing the point. Nobody here cares what the current status quo is in US law. That's not what the issue is. The OP did not ask "Is the Civl Rights Act currently a law in the US." It asked "Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?" Do you see the difference? Does your support just go blindly to whatever a bunch of stuffed shirts in some town say you should support? 
|
|
#92
10-09-2007, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] you are misunderstanding power here, it doesn't matter if you already did it. It not within my power to kill somebody for sport whether or not I alreaddy did it. [/ QUOTE ] How is it not? [ QUOTE ] If I have a Right to free speech and association do I have the right to have a rally at two in the morning in the middle of a subdivision? What about the right of those in the subdivision to enjoy their property? [/ QUOTE ] This is why I don't believe in a right to free speech, or a right to associate with anyone. I do believe I have a right to *decline* to associate with someone, which is different. I do believe in property rights, and property owners certainly have a legitimate authority to permit whatever speech they like on their own property, or to exclude any people from their property, for any reason. [ QUOTE ] You seem to have a problem with contemplating that peoples rights can conflict with each other. [/ QUOTE ] Not really. I don't throw the term "right" around very loosely. None of the scenarios you pose have any conflict of rights that I can see. [ QUOTE ] What if you are infringing on my right to enjoy my property by being on it, I kill you, this infringes on your right to live. [/ QUOTE ] I don't belive in a "right to live." Who should be liable when I die of natural causes? Is my "right to life" violated by cancer? [ QUOTE ] Are you saying there is no coflict here because I killed you and I had the power to do so because you came onto my land? (BTW this includes when you are out walking your dog and he stumbles onto the land and when you decide to rob me) [/ QUOTE ] Now you're conflating power and right. [/ QUOTE ] You seem to be throwing belief around alot. If I say I don't believe the Earth is round and I don't thow around the term Science lightly is not a rational argument. Define right for me, so I can see where you are coming from. I pretty sure there are no rights under anarchocapitalism other than right to the pursuit of property am I right, or is that a misunderstnading?
|
|
#93
10-09-2007, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Which do YOU think it is? [/ QUOTE ] Which do I think the right to be a customer at a restaurant is an inherent right of? I would say a liberty right to shop where I want, I think the right to acquire property is not really a property right. I am sure there is case law on that but I do not personally know. [/ QUOTE ] I can't see how you can possibly derrive a *right* to be a customer. What if there are no restaurants at all near me? Who should be compelled to provide me with a restaurant to satisfy my positve right to be a customer at a restaurant? If you mean I have a right to choose who I associate with, then clearly this right must either be A) a right of everyone else or B) a right of a certain class who has different rights than others. And if you suggest that there are cases where I can choose to associate with someone and he has no right to refuse that association, then you must be suggesting that B) is the case. Do you agree that there are some people in a moral class superior to others, with rights that trump those members of the inferior class? Agree or disagree, please. [/ QUOTE ] I cant agree or disagree because your premise is wrong. It is not that I have a right to shop there, but the liberty interest to purchase food is equally guranteed to all, so if someone can buy food there and I can't because of my race and there is a law that says thats wrong we go to my earlier post. [/ QUOTE ] Wow. Who "guarantees" the "liberty interest" to purchase "food"? Does this mean I have my rights violated if the restaurant down the street doesn't have chateaubriand? If not, and we're only talking about a generic "food" right here, what quality of food do I have a right to purchase? And how much? And at what price? Do you agree that there are some people in a moral class superior to others, with rights that trump those members of the inferior class? Yes or no. Your personal opinion, please. I'm not interested in what the fourty ninth circle of the High Court of Alderan thinks about this question. I want to know what YOU think about this.
|
|
#94
10-09-2007, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
? I just gave two examples. Are you saying we don't have a property right or right to not be murdered? [/ QUOTE ] The "right not to be murdered" (which is different than a right to life, you talk enough like a lawyer to make this distinction) is *derrived* from a property right. The fact that someone steps over your property line does not mean they forfeit their property right in their own body. In other words, the fact that two people decide to violate each others' rights doesn't mean there is some inherent incompatiblity in their rights.
|
|
#95
10-09-2007, 03:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] To clarify: You are asking why being a 'racist' isn't illegal? [/ QUOTE ] I am arguing that people should be legally permitted to freely form associations based any criteria they want, even irrational (including racist) ones. [/ QUOTE ] They are, the KKK is not an illegal group to belong to. However, if you look at say Augusta in terms of woman, well the law isn't settled in that area yet, and I really do not know enough about it. This is first amendment territoy and involve different tests and arguments. [/ QUOTE ] Here we go. He's arguing normatively, and you're running to what the law says. Guess what, the dispute isn't over what US law says, it's over the "rightness" or "wrongness" of that law. If I say people should be permitted to smoke pot, would you respond that "well, the law says pot is illegal"? [/ QUOTE ] No, I would not say that. [/ QUOTE ] Yet that's basically what you just did. The only difference is that in this particular case, the law you ran to "isn't settled yet." I haven't decided yet whether or not you should be able to be friends with your next door neighbor. Do you think my upcoming decision is legitimately meaningful? [/ QUOTE ] Isn't settled yet goes to the current makeup of the court. My actual point was that I don't know, because I don't know, as a reasonist I have no problem with pleading ignorance and instead of stating an opinion that I feel is not properly grounded I just didn't answer. I see no problem with stating I don't know, then stating this is the answer because my gut says so. [/ QUOTE ] This is what the previous poster menat when he said you were hilariously missing the point. Nobody here cares what the current status quo is in US law. That's not what the issue is. The OP did not ask "Is the Civl Rights Act currently a law in the US." It asked "Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?" Do you see the difference? Does your support just go blindly to whatever a bunch of stuffed shirts in some town say you should support? [/ QUOTE ] You are obviously missing the point of my answer. Believe it or not this is not a new arguement, some of the smartest people in the world have debated this and came up with an answer. This answer is one I agree with. SO instead of reinventing the wheel I am giving the reasoning and analysis used that support the conclusion that I agree with. The analysis and argument that I have put forth, is *gasp* a really good one. I have done my best to reiterate it.
|
|
#96
10-09-2007, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] To clarify: You are asking why being a 'racist' isn't illegal? [/ QUOTE ] I am arguing that people should be legally permitted to freely form associations based any criteria they want, even irrational (including racist) ones. [/ QUOTE ] They are, the KKK is not an illegal group to belong to. However, if you look at say Augusta in terms of woman, well the law isn't settled in that area yet, and I really do not know enough about it. This is first amendment territoy and involve different tests and arguments. [/ QUOTE ] Here we go. He's arguing normatively, and you're running to what the law says. Guess what, the dispute isn't over what US law says, it's over the "rightness" or "wrongness" of that law. If I say people should be permitted to smoke pot, would you respond that "well, the law says pot is illegal"? [/ QUOTE ] No, I would not say that. [/ QUOTE ] Yet that's basically what you just did. The only difference is that in this particular case, the law you ran to "isn't settled yet." I haven't decided yet whether or not you should be able to be friends with your next door neighbor. Do you think my upcoming decision is legitimately meaningful? [/ QUOTE ] Isn't settled yet goes to the current makeup of the court. My actual point was that I don't know, because I don't know, as a reasonist I have no problem with pleading ignorance and instead of stating an opinion that I feel is not properly grounded I just didn't answer. I see no problem with stating I don't know, then stating this is the answer because my gut says so. [/ QUOTE ] This is what the previous poster menat when he said you were hilariously missing the point. Nobody here cares what the current status quo is in US law. That's not what the issue is. The OP did not ask "Is the Civl Rights Act currently a law in the US." It asked "Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?" Do you see the difference? Does your support just go blindly to whatever a bunch of stuffed shirts in some town say you should support? [/ QUOTE ] You are obviously missing the point of my answer. Believe it or not this is not a new arguement, some of the smartest people in the world have debated this and came up with an answer. This answer is one I agree with. SO instead of reinventing the wheel I am giving the reasoning and analysis used that support the conclusion that I agree with. The analysis and argument that I have put forth, is *gasp* a really good one. I have done my best to reiterate it. [/ QUOTE ] What is not a new argument? I'm asking your personal opinion here, not making an argument. The answer to WHICH question of mine that you haven't answered is one you agree with? And what is that answer?
|
|
#97
10-09-2007, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Which do YOU think it is? [/ QUOTE ] Which do I think the right to be a customer at a restaurant is an inherent right of? I would say a liberty right to shop where I want, I think the right to acquire property is not really a property right. I am sure there is case law on that but I do not personally know. [/ QUOTE ] I can't see how you can possibly derrive a *right* to be a customer. What if there are no restaurants at all near me? Who should be compelled to provide me with a restaurant to satisfy my positve right to be a customer at a restaurant? If you mean I have a right to choose who I associate with, then clearly this right must either be A) a right of everyone else or B) a right of a certain class who has different rights than others. And if you suggest that there are cases where I can choose to associate with someone and he has no right to refuse that association, then you must be suggesting that B) is the case. Do you agree that there are some people in a moral class superior to others, with rights that trump those members of the inferior class? Agree or disagree, please. [/ QUOTE ] I cant agree or disagree because your premise is wrong. It is not that I have a right to shop there, but the liberty interest to purchase food is equally guranteed to all, so if someone can buy food there and I can't because of my race and there is a law that says thats wrong we go to my earlier post. [/ QUOTE ] Wow. Who "guarantees" the "liberty interest" to purchase "food"? Does this mean I have my rights violated if the restaurant down the street doesn't have chateaubriand? If not, and we're only talking about a generic "food" right here, what quality of food do I have a right to purchase? And how much? And at what price? Do you agree that there are some people in a moral class superior to others, with rights that trump those members of the inferior class? Yes or no. Your personal opinion, please. I'm not interested in what the fourty ninth circle of the High Court of Alderan thinks about this question. I want to know what YOU think about this. [/ QUOTE ] Moral class? What is a moral class? By food all mean is the right to consume goods, the right to purchase, it doesn't matter what. Bread or nuclear weapons.
|
|
#98
10-09-2007, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] To clarify: You are asking why being a 'racist' isn't illegal? [/ QUOTE ] I am arguing that people should be legally permitted to freely form associations based any criteria they want, even irrational (including racist) ones. [/ QUOTE ] They are, the KKK is not an illegal group to belong to. However, if you look at say Augusta in terms of woman, well the law isn't settled in that area yet, and I really do not know enough about it. This is first amendment territoy and involve different tests and arguments. [/ QUOTE ] Here we go. He's arguing normatively, and you're running to what the law says. Guess what, the dispute isn't over what US law says, it's over the "rightness" or "wrongness" of that law. If I say people should be permitted to smoke pot, would you respond that "well, the law says pot is illegal"? [/ QUOTE ] No, I would not say that. [/ QUOTE ] Yet that's basically what you just did. The only difference is that in this particular case, the law you ran to "isn't settled yet." I haven't decided yet whether or not you should be able to be friends with your next door neighbor. Do you think my upcoming decision is legitimately meaningful? [/ QUOTE ] Isn't settled yet goes to the current makeup of the court. My actual point was that I don't know, because I don't know, as a reasonist I have no problem with pleading ignorance and instead of stating an opinion that I feel is not properly grounded I just didn't answer. I see no problem with stating I don't know, then stating this is the answer because my gut says so. [/ QUOTE ] This is what the previous poster menat when he said you were hilariously missing the point. Nobody here cares what the current status quo is in US law. That's not what the issue is. The OP did not ask "Is the Civl Rights Act currently a law in the US." It asked "Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?" Do you see the difference? Does your support just go blindly to whatever a bunch of stuffed shirts in some town say you should support? [/ QUOTE ] You are obviously missing the point of my answer. Believe it or not this is not a new arguement, some of the smartest people in the world have debated this and came up with an answer. This answer is one I agree with. SO instead of reinventing the wheel I am giving the reasoning and analysis used that support the conclusion that I agree with. The analysis and argument that I have put forth, is *gasp* a really good one. I have done my best to reiterate it. [/ QUOTE ] What is not a new argument? I'm asking your personal opinion here, not making an argument. The answer to WHICH question of mine that you haven't answered is one you agree with? And what is that answer? [/ QUOTE ] My answer is to the OP question, everything after has just been related to that original answer
|
|
#99
10-09-2007, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
Moral class? What is a moral class? [/ QUOTE ] A moral class would be a group of people constrained by the same rules. If we're members of the same class, and it's bad for you to shoot someone in the head it must also be bad for me to shoot someone in the head. Exchanging me for you as the actor in a particular scenario should not change the ruling as to whether a particular action is "right" or "wrong." If changing you for me DOES change the ruling, then we're members of different classes. [ QUOTE ] By food all mean is the right to consume goods, the right to purchase, it doesn't matter what. Bread or nuclear weapons. [/ QUOTE ] Wait, are we talking about consuming them or acquiring them? You've said acquire (and/or "purchase") previously, now you're saying consume. I hope you see why this is not a trivial distinction.
|
|
#100
10-09-2007, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Moral class? What is a moral class? [/ QUOTE ] A moral class would be a group of people constrained by the same rules. If we're members of the same class, and it's bad for you to shoot someone in the head it must also be bad for me to shoot someone in the head. Exchanging me for you as the actor in a particular scenario should not change the ruling as to whether a particular action is "right" or "wrong." If changing you for me DOES change the ruling, then we're members of different classes. [ QUOTE ] By food all mean is the right to consume goods, the right to purchase, it doesn't matter what. Bread or nuclear weapons. [/ QUOTE ] Wait, are we talking about consuming them or acquiring them? You've said acquire (and/or "purchase") previously, now you're saying consume. I hope you see why this is not a trivial distinction. [/ QUOTE ] Okay I get what you mean, I would call it a suspect class and say yes. There are certain suspect classes who get "elevated" scrutiny. Without going into it in to much detail this would enable some classes of people whose rights are infrined to automatically be subject to a strict scrutiny analysis, whether or not the right is deemed fundamantal. This elevates the scrutiny of the class and enables more protection to them. Your right on the consumer/right to purchase distinction, I meant right to purchase.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
