|
|
#101
10-09-2007, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] No, you're not getting my question. In fact, I think when you say you're going to "autmotcially infringe" some people's rights, you're saying you think they DO have the same rights, you just don't care. Now we're into the difference between the *power* to do something and *legitimate authority* to do it. [ QUOTE ] Your right on the consumer/right to purchase distinction, I meant right to purchase. [/ QUOTE ] So what exactly does a "right to purchase" entail? I would like to purchase my neighbor's picasso for $20. How do I exercise my "right to purchase" it? 
|
|
#102
10-09-2007, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
Who moved my cheese? Everytime I try to explain my reasoning so that you will understand what I am saying you split hairs and play semantics with words. i have no problem with this if at the end you will actually getmy point. But now we seem to be running in circles.
If you want to call it power or authority to do something, or sovereig rights or whatever, I really don't care. This is as long as you do it doesn't change the context of the argument. Changing definitions to words to fit your argument is a great strawman tactic, but does not lend itself to truth or reason. As far as right to purchase the "to purchase" part is not important to the analysis the point is that it is a right of the individual, not a fundamental right but a right non theless granted to the individual by the constitution. From this right we can have conflicts with other rights. My other points address this further.
|
|
#103
10-09-2007, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
This thread got hilariously hijacked, but the response to the first ~20 posts on the first page can be summarized as:
[ QUOTE ] Alabama, 1967? I think your scenarios are just a bit flawed. [/ QUOTE ] The "oh, the market will even everything out in the long run" line did not get anywhere in the South for over 20 years after the civil rights movement got off the ground. edit: [ QUOTE ] In a scenario where more people would support a racist establishment I think you have to resort to the other argument against the Act that I mentioned. The argument that complete respect of private property is necessary for a free society. [/ QUOTE ] This is basically a copout because it's a purely ideological argument - both undisprovable and patently wrong on its face to all but the most biased observer, once you look a little deeper. "Respect for private property" may well be necessary for a free society. "Complete respect...in a free society" is just a bizarre line used only by hardcore libertarians and ancaps that doesn't really go anywhere, because it overlooks the 'society' part of the 'free society' statement. Rephrase the question a little. If I'm the only purveyor of canned air on Mars after their dome punctures, and the state forces me into temporary price controls, is the society still free? By ancap standards, it's probably not. However, if it doesn't, and people die because they can't afford to breathe, the result is not actually a 'society'. (Before you start rolling your eyes at the hypothetical, understand that the hypo has nothing to do with the point; it could easily be about food during a famine, or, more apt, a village full of white people with a few black families in the middle.) Like it or not, a society is not a collection of millions of random individuals engaging in an endless loop of wholly rational economic actions; it is, instead, a collection of humans. There is a gigantic difference between the two, and in many cases, the disparity is large enough to make something like the Civil Rights Act a necessity. "Complete respect for private property" gets us to the same tired "move states if you don't like it" argument that ancaps love to bitch about statists for using. The only difference is that you're asking far more people to move because of sheer prejudice (to say nothing of every other reason) than there are ancaps on the planet.
|
|
#104
10-09-2007, 09:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
This thread got hilariously hijacked, but the response to the first ~20 posts on the first page can be summarized as: [ QUOTE ] Alabama, 1967? I think your scenarios are just a bit flawed. [/ QUOTE ] The "oh, the market will even everything out in the long run" line did not get anywhere in the South for over 20 years after the civil rights movement got off the ground. [/ QUOTE ] You realize that the shift was from state sponsored segregation to state sponsored integration?
|
|
#105
10-09-2007, 10:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
This thread got hilariously hijacked, but the response to the first ~20 posts on the first page can be summarized as: [ QUOTE ] Alabama, 1967? I think your scenarios are just a bit flawed. [/ QUOTE ] The "oh, the market will even everything out in the long run" line did not get anywhere in the South for over 20 years after the civil rights movement got off the ground. [/ QUOTE ] Jim Crow wasn't a product of the market. Jim Crow was a product of the state. Jim Crow was a series of LAWS.  [ QUOTE ] Rephrase the question a little. If I'm the only purveyor of canned air on Mars after their dome punctures, and the state forces me into temporary price controls, is the society still free? By ancap standards, it's probably not. However, if it doesn't, and people die because they can't afford to breathe, the result is not actually a 'society'. (Before you start rolling your eyes at the hypothetical, understand that the hypo has nothing to do with the point; it could easily be about food during a famine, or, more apt, a village full of white people with a few black families in the middle.) [/ QUOTE ] People "roll their eyes" because you're jumping straight to edge case scenarios to justify rules that are proposed for non-edge-case scenarios. [ QUOTE ] "Complete respect for private property" gets us to the same tired "move states if you don't like it" argument that ancaps love to bitch about statists for using. The only difference is that you're asking far more people to move because of sheer prejudice (to say nothing of every other reason) than there are ancaps on the planet. [/ QUOTE ] No, the difference is quite significant. The state doesn't own the land upon which it imposes its rules. The racist restaurant owner does.
|
|
#106
10-09-2007, 10:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
Who moved my cheese? Everytime I try to explain my reasoning so that you will understand what I am saying you split hairs and play semantics with words. i have no problem with this if at the end you will actually getmy point. But now we seem to be running in circles. [/ QUOTE ] What words am I playing semantics with? You AGREED that there is a significant (i.e. not a hair-splitting) difference between purchasing and consuming. Sheesh. [ QUOTE ] If you want to call it power or authority to do something, or sovereig rights or whatever, I really don't care. This is as long as you do it doesn't change the context of the argument. Changing definitions to words to fit your argument is a great strawman tactic, but does not lend itself to truth or reason. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not changing anything. People have the power to kill others. THat's different than having legitimate authority (roughly, a "right") to do so. I'm using these terms to AVOID confusion, since earlier you were apparently conflating "power" and "right" [ QUOTE ] As far as right to purchase the "to purchase" part is not important to the analysis the point is that it is a right of the individual, not a fundamental right but a right non theless granted to the individual by the constitution. From this right we can have conflicts with other rights. My other points address this further. [/ QUOTE ] Stop right there. The constitution grants no rights to individuals. This isn't a semantical nitpick. You complain about "splitting hairs", I'm simply trying to get you to use a consistent, precise set of words. You want to play the strawman card, which is easier to construct a strawman with, precise words or vague, fuzzy words?
|
|
#107
10-09-2007, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
Jim Crow wasn't a product of the market. Jim Crow was a product of the state. Jim Crow was a series of LAWS. [/ QUOTE ] So, if we removed Jim Crow laws from 1950 Alabama and did nothing else, the South would integrate? How long do you think that'd take? Longer than ~25 years (one generation)? [ QUOTE ] People "roll their eyes" because you're jumping straight to edge case scenarios to justify rules that are proposed for non-edge-case scenarios. [/ QUOTE ] What you want is an edge case scenario. [ QUOTE ] No, the difference is quite significant. The state doesn't own the land upon which it imposes its rules. The racist restaurant owner does. [/ QUOTE ] And? Where's the justification for "complete freedom" in that statement? If a large majority of white men in Alabama are racist, they're within their complete, absolute authority to get the blacks to move? Your ideology's end result is reminiscent of the seagulls in Finding Nemo yelling "mine mine mine mine mine" at every opportunity - it's not actually a 'society' at all.
|
|
#109
10-09-2007, 11:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Jim Crow wasn't a product of the market. Jim Crow was a product of the state. Jim Crow was a series of LAWS. [/ QUOTE ] So, if we removed Jim Crow laws from 1950 Alabama and did nothing else, the South would integrate? How long do you think that'd take? Longer than ~25 years (one generation)? [/ QUOTE ] Who knows? Maybe never. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] People "roll their eyes" because you're jumping straight to edge case scenarios to justify rules that are proposed for non-edge-case scenarios. [/ QUOTE ] What you want is an edge case scenario. [/ QUOTE ] So you want to come up with rules to cover situations where there's only one canned-air vendor on mars AND there's been a catastrophic atmospheric failure, and you want to put that rule in place all the time, even if there is more than one air vendor and there's no catastrophic atmospheric failure. Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would roll their eyes at you. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No, the difference is quite significant. The state doesn't own the land upon which it imposes its rules. The racist restaurant owner does. [/ QUOTE ] And? Where's the justification for "complete freedom" in that statement? If a large majority of white men in Alabama are racist, they're within their complete, absolute authority to get the blacks to move? [/ QUOTE ] Who is forcing anyone to move?
|
|
#110
10-09-2007, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Jim Crow wasn't a product of the market. Jim Crow was a product of the state. Jim Crow was a series of LAWS. [/ QUOTE ] So, if we removed Jim Crow laws from 1950 Alabama and did nothing else, the South would integrate? How long do you think that'd take? Longer than ~25 years (one generation)? [/ QUOTE ] Who knows? Maybe never. [/ QUOTE ] And that's why your candidates will never, ever get elected.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
