|
|
#81
10-09-2007, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
Again, here's the question you didn't answer: What's the "compelling interest" here in arbitrarily saying it's ok to discriminate for group X but not OK for group Y? Here are some additional questions: Alice has some hotdogs. Is it OK for her to sell them to Bob but not to Charlie? Bob has some shiny rocks. Is it OK for him to trade them to Alice for hotdogs, but refuse to trade them to Charlie for hotdogs? Charlie has some ice cream cones. Is it OK for him to trade them to Alice for hotdogs but refuse to trade them to Bob for hotdogs? Is there a *moral* difference between hotdogs, shiny rocks, and ice cream cones that makes the answers to these questions different? [/ QUOTE ] Bump. 
|
|
#82
10-09-2007, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Perhaps a better way of stating it would be this way. Barowner can deprive service to anyone for any reason, that is his inherent right to his property, as a fundamental right to property is the right to include and exclude. Congress passes a law that states you cannot depreve service based of race. So now the question is, do they have the power to do that? [/ QUOTE ] Obviously they have the *power* to do that, they already did it! A better question is do they have *legitimate authority* to do so. My answer is "no". If something, in this case, the property owner's choice of association, is in fact a RIGHT then it CANNOT be *legitimately* selectively squelched at someone else's whim. [/ 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. 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? You seem to have a problem with contemplating that peoples rights can conflict with each other. 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. 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)
|
|
#83
10-09-2007, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ 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.
|
|
#84
10-09-2007, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Perhaps a better way of stating it would be this way. Barowner can deprive service to anyone for any reason, that is his inherent right to his property, as a fundamental right to property is the right to include and exclude. Congress passes a law that states you cannot depreve service based of race. So now the question is, do they have the power to do that? [/ QUOTE ] Obviously they have the *power* to do that, they already did it! A better question is do they have *legitimate authority* to do so. My answer is "no". If something, in this case, the property owner's choice of association, is in fact a RIGHT then it CANNOT be *legitimately* selectively squelched at someone else's whim. [/ 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. 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? You seem to have a problem with contemplating that peoples rights can conflict with each other. 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. 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 ] If they conflict with each other then they can't possibly both be rights.
|
|
#85
10-09-2007, 03:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ 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.
|
|
#86
10-09-2007, 03:07 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, [/ QUOTE ] Not the broke.
|
|
#87
10-09-2007, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Perhaps a better way of stating it would be this way. Barowner can deprive service to anyone for any reason, that is his inherent right to his property, as a fundamental right to property is the right to include and exclude. Congress passes a law that states you cannot depreve service based of race. So now the question is, do they have the power to do that? [/ QUOTE ] Obviously they have the *power* to do that, they already did it! A better question is do they have *legitimate authority* to do so. My answer is "no". If something, in this case, the property owner's choice of association, is in fact a RIGHT then it CANNOT be *legitimately* selectively squelched at someone else's whim. [/ 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. 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? You seem to have a problem with contemplating that peoples rights can conflict with each other. 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. 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 ] If they conflict with each other then they can't possibly both be rights. [/ QUOTE ] ? I just gave two examples. Are you saying we don't have a property right or right to not be murdered? Put another way, you can not have more than one right for your premise to be true.
|
|
#88
10-09-2007, 03:11 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, [/ QUOTE ] Not the broke. [/ QUOTE ] Even if you do not have any money you don't lose your right to make the purchase, you just cant exercise it. That is just a stupid comment.
|
|
#89
10-09-2007, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ 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.
|
|
#90
10-09-2007, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Again, here's the question you didn't answer: What's the "compelling interest" here in arbitrarily saying it's ok to discriminate for group X but not OK for group Y? Here are some additional questions: Alice has some hotdogs. Is it OK for her to sell them to Bob but not to Charlie? Bob has some shiny rocks. Is it OK for him to trade them to Alice for hotdogs, but refuse to trade them to Charlie for hotdogs? Charlie has some ice cream cones. Is it OK for him to trade them to Alice for hotdogs but refuse to trade them to Bob for hotdogs? Is there a *moral* difference between hotdogs, shiny rocks, and ice cream cones that makes the answers to these questions different? [/ QUOTE ] Bump. [/ QUOTE ] I believe I have answered that.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
