Racism

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I myself am not a racist, but I don't see why it is illegal for someone who owns a business to deny someone a job based on race, or to sell somebody something. I'll probably get flamed for saying that, but it makes no sense to me. If let's say an Italian starts up a business here and only wants to hire people that are related to his culture here in the U.S, what would give the Gov the right to step in if he denied someone a job in his business for being a different european race, or african american, etc? Doesn't this fit in with the freedom to associate with who you want?

[MRoCkEd]

Actually I think most of us will agree with you. An employer should be able to hire or fire anyone for any reason.

[Nate]

I agree. Rascists have the right to associate with whomever they want or don't want. I think they are ignorant scumbags and would love nothing else than if they all moved to a few hick towns and just choose not to associate at all with anybody outside their regressive backwards ideology. The rest of the world would be better off if they just separated from everyone else. The problem is when they want to force separation on everyone else but you are right in that forced diversity and integration is just as bad. If they don't want to integrate they shouldn't have to.

[__27__]

I myself am not a racist,


I'd have to disagree.


africans have the lowest IQ's what do you expect?

As for the rest of it? A private business should be free to employ and sell any way it sees fit, if that means they won't employ/sell to redheaded people, that's solely up to them. It is also the right of a private individual, or a private organization to expose those businesses for what they are, and to boycott them and encourage others to do the same, I know I would (and have).

[Theocrat]

Racists do not have a right to be racist. Hatred or discrimination based on the color of one's skin is sin. God made us of one blood, which means we're all descendents of Adam and Eve. There is no justification for racism in any capacity.

In a sense, I do understand what you're getting at, though. Private businesses should be able to set the rules for how they conduct their businesses, for the most part. If a business owner is racist, then I don't think it would be wise for him to start a business because the market will not work in his favor in the end. Consumers will not purchase his products or use his services, and workers will not want to work for him because of his racial prejudice. News will get around that the employer is racist, and that will affect his sales negatively in the end (all things being equal and holy).

[__27__]

Racists do not have a right to be racist. Hatred or discrimination based on the color of one's skin is sin. God made us of one blood, which means we're all descendents of Adam and Eve. There is no justification for racism in any capacity.

In a sense, I do understand what you're getting at, though. Private businesses should be able to set the rules for how they conduct their businesses, for the most part. If a business owner is racist, then I don't think it would be wise for him to start a business because the market will not work in his favor in the end. Consumers will not purchase his products or use his services, and workers will not want to work for him because of his racial prejudice. News will get around that the employer is racist, and that will affect his sales negatively in the end (all things being equal and holy).

A person doesn't have a right to their own thoughts?

What brand of liberty you espouse I'm not quite sure....

[Liberty Star]

I think Nate is prejudiced against racism lol

[ClayTrainor]

Racists do not have a right to be racist. Hatred or discrimination based on the color of one's skin is sin. God made us of one blood, which means we're all descendents of Adam and Eve. There is no justification for racism in any capacity.

I agree racism is unjustified and evil but, I support to the death somebody's right to be racist, if they choose so long as they do not harm the individual rights of others.

I would like to convince them that they are wrong, but i cannot force them into this idea.



In a sense, I do understand what you're getting at, though. Private businesses should be able to set the rules for how they conduct their businesses, for the most part. If a business owner is racist, then I don't think it would be wise for him to start a business because the market will not work in his favor in the end.

Exactly...


Consumers will not purchase his products or use his services, and workers will not want to work for him because of his racial prejudice. News will get around that the employer is racist, and that will affect his sales negatively in the end (all things being equal and holy).

The free market will work it out ;)

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I'd have to disagree.



As for the rest of it? A private business should be free to employ and sell any way it sees fit, if that means they won't employ/sell to redheaded people, that's solely up to them. It is also the right of a private individual, or a private organization to expose those businesses for what they are, and to boycott them and encourage others to do the same, I know I would (and have).

I said africans, I mean politically the people that live in africa, not the race. It was in a thread about them worshipping Obama, don't twist my words.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Basing your hiring practices off of a skin color or ethnic background in this day and age is just repugnant. Anyone business that made it a habit to do this deserves what it will eventually get but the the premise that a company should be forced to hire certain people is just as, if not more, repugnant than those who would deny the work based off of these variables. Freedom means that we have a right to think, say and feel whatever we want no matter how idiotic it may be and the second we decide the restrict the rights for one group who says,does or thinks something unpopular is the second we forfeit these rights for the rest of us as well. Freedom means we have to accept the unpopular and stupid right along with the popular and righteous. The EOE laws and regulations do more harm than good. Has it really helped race relations at all with the creation of these laws? I would say it has resulted in quite the opposite since there are now multitudes of people out there who are angry for being passed over for employment or advancement in favor of minorities who were not as qualified. These EOE regulations just reinforce the idea that we are different and that certain groups need a helping hand in order to make it in modern society which is the antithesis to actual equality because it reinforces the collectivist mantra of us versus them and breeds racism and hatred. If we are to ever truly be a free and equal society than we must stop viewing ourselves as members of groups and start viewing ourselves as individuals.

[literatim]

Racists do not have a right to be racist. Hatred or discrimination based on the color of one's skin is sin. God made us of one blood, which means we're all descendents of Adam and Eve. There is no justification for racism in any capacity.

They don't have a right to their own thoughts and expression? It is your theology that states that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Someone else could have a very different belief in such matters, so what you give as justification to restrict someone's right to liberty is asinine. You want to preach to them the greatness of diversity? You certainly are free to as long as they want to listen.


In a sense, I do understand what you're getting at, though. Private businesses should be able to set the rules for how they conduct their businesses, for the most part. If a business owner is racist, then I don't think it would be wise for him to start a business because the market will not work in his favor in the end. Consumers will not purchase his products or use his services, and workers will not want to work for him because of his racial prejudice. News will get around that the employer is racist, and that will affect his sales negatively in the end (all things being equal and holy).

Did this even have a point? Everyone here knows what a free market is. If he can't support such a business, that would be his problem.

[Theocrat]

They don't have a right to their own thoughts and expression? It is your theology that states that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Someone else could have a very different belief in such matters, so what you give as justification to restrict someone's right to liberty is asinine. You want to preach to them the greatness of diversity? You certainly are free to as long as they want to listen.

I understand that people can be racist without acting out on their racism. However, I would like to know where an individual gets the right to be racist. For all intents and purposes, my position is not based on subjective pontification. The theology I espouse gives the basis for why racism is wrong in the first place, and that is why I mentioned our being descendants of Adam and Eve. I do understand that others will not ascribe to that belief, but that doesn't negate the truth of my theology, either. After all, we're dealing with absolute truth here in discussing whether racism is justified in public affairs of business.

You say I wish to "restrict someone's right to liberty" and that such a motive is "asinine," but you leave yourself wide open to the charge. After all, you're the one who has a problem with my theology being applied to others universally. Do you value the right of liberty for me to condemn racism based on my theological beliefs? Yes, I want to preach the "greatness of diversity" to racists, but I do not want to do so under the guise of pretended neutrality, either. If we are to condemn racism for what it is in reality, then there has to be an objective basis for doing so. That is where my theology comes in.


Did this even have a point? Everyone here knows what a free market is. If he can't support such a business, that would be his problem.

I was just reiterating the point of what a free market does in the situation of a racist business owner.

[ClayTrainor]

I understand that people can be racist without acting out on their racism. However, I would like to know where an individual gets the right to be racist.

He has a right to his own thoughts, his freedom of speech, and his own property, in which he can do whatever he wants with, so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others.

[Optatron]

Racists do not have a right to be racist. Hatred or discrimination based on the color of one's skin is sin. God made us of one blood, which means we're all descendents of Adam and Eve. There is no justification for racism in any capacity.


So racism should be a crime?




In a sense, I do understand what you're getting at, though. Private businesses should be able to set the rules for how they conduct their businesses, for the most part.


So where CAN THEY NOT?



If a business owner is racist, then I don't think it would be wise for him to start a business because the market will not work in his favor in the end. Consumers will not purchase his products or use his services, and workers will not want to work for him because of his racial prejudice. News will get around that the employer is racist, and that will affect his sales negatively in the end (all things being equal and holy).

not if he's the only supplier of a particular item, where there's no competition.

Today, would it matter to you if Federal Reserve, Microsoft, and WalMart were racist child molesters? You may not like it, but you have very little choices.

[__27__]

Today, would it matter to you if Federal Reserve, Microsoft, and WalMart were racist child molesters? You may not like it, but you have very little choices.

Only one of your examples actually works, (and only by you guessed it, the state monopoly) the Fed.

I don't particularly care for WalMart, and I have never once in my 27 year life bought a product from them. I happen to like Microsoft, but there are plenty of alternatives available on the open source market.

[Theocrat]

He has a right to his own thoughts, his freedom of speech, and his own property, in which he can do whatever he wants with, so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others.

All you've told me is that a racist individual has a right to be racist because he can think that way. I asked from where or from whom does he get the "right" to think racist thoughts. Non-infringement of others' rights is a different subject.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

All you've told me is that a racist individual has a right to be racist because he can think that way. I asked from where or from whom does he get the "right" to think racist thoughts. Non-infringement of others' rights is a different subject.

If being racist isn't legal, then it's illegal, so you would support sending people to jail for being racist?

[MRoCkEd]

If being racist isn't legal, then it's illegal, so you would support sending people to jail for being racist?
He didn't say being racist should be illegal. He questioned whether there is a right to be racist. Remember, you can support the legality of doing something without believing we have a right to do it.

[Optatron]

Only one of your examples actually works, (and only by you guessed it, the state monopoly) the Fed.

I don't particularly care for WalMart, and I have never once in my 27 year life bought a product from them. I happen to like Microsoft, but there are plenty of alternatives available on the open source market.

i said very little, and probably inconvenient choices. not non-existent.

you can ditch your house and live in a car, not nice, but better than nothing.

[Optatron]

All you've told me is that a racist individual has a right to be racist because he can think that way. I asked from where or from whom does he get the "right" to think racist thoughts. Non-infringement of others' rights is a different subject.

why do you always think a person has a right that comes from a source?

where do you get the right to rape and lie? From God.

[Optatron]

If being racist isn't legal, then it's illegal, so you would support sending people to jail for being racist?

let me guess he'll say : not on a federal level

[acptulsa]

I think the free market of ideas will ultimately kill racism. Don't know what else can. Certainly chasing after racists with the thought police is basically just becoming evil in order to fight evil better.

Wish I knew why 'folks are folks' is such a hard concept. It has certainly been proven often enough.

[JoshLowry]

All you've told me is that a racist individual has a right to be racist because he can think that way. I asked from where or from whom does he get the "right" to think racist thoughts. Non-infringement of others' rights is a different subject.

I would think it would come from the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

I think someone should have the freedom to hire whomever they want. It's their own business.

[Optatron]

I would think it would come from the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

I think someone should have the freedom to hire whomever they want. It's their own business.

this country used to have some respect for private property and voluntary exchange.

But today, you see all over the place "equal opportunity" "no discrimination" (on anything but money), "affirmative action"....forced down people involuntarily.

It doesn't end at race!
Private property cannot refuse to prepare reserved handicap parking spaces!

One thing that seemed to be still left alone, is that you don't see Chinatowns, Koreatowns, Jewish neighborhoods that are required to have every sign include English.

[erowe1]

I would think it would come from the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

I think someone should have the freedom to hire whomever they want. It's their own business.

The Constitution doesn't and can't grant people actual rights. It can only recognize them and be either right or wrong in doing so. It is true that it can "grant" rights in nothing more than a purely legal sense. But this is something much less than the basic idea of genuine God given rights to which I assume Mr. Theocrat refers.

And I think that distinction is important. There is one question, whether racism is actually wrong according to an absolute moral standard (and if no such standard exists then this is a moot question, since there would thus be no such thing as absolute right or wrong). And then there is a second question, whether the kind of human government that ought to exist on earth is such that it ought to prohibit racism. The second question is still a question of moral absolutes (what ought a government do?). But it is still a different question. And if that second question is to be answered "No. A government ought not to prohibit racism." then the right to be racist only exists in the lesser purely legal sense. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is actually morally right to have racist thoughts.

My understanding (and I don't claim to have perfect understanding of all questions of morality) is that it is wrong (i.e. not right) to be racist, but that it is also wrong for government to prohibit racism. Racist people will have to answer to God for their sins, as will people who attempt to use the force of government to impose non-racist beliefs on racist people.

[MRoCkEd]

The Constitution doesn't and can't grant people actual rights. It can only recognize them and be either right or wrong in doing so. It is true that it can "grant" rights in nothing more than a purely legal sense. But this is something much less than the basic idea of genuine God given rights to which I assume Mr. Theocrat refers.

And I think that distinction is important. There is one question, whether racism is actually wrong according to an absolute moral standard (and if no such standard exists then this is a moot question, since there would thus be no such thing as absolute right or wrong). And then there is a second question, whether the kind of human government that ought to exist on earth is such that it ought to prohibit racism. The second question is still a question of moral absolutes (what ought a government do?). But it is still a different question. And if that second question is to be answered "No. A government ought not to prohibit racism." then the right to be racist only exists in the lesser purely legal sense. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is actually morally right to have racist thoughts.

My understanding (and I don't claim to have perfect understanding of all questions of morality) is that it is wrong (i.e. not right) to be racist, but that it is also wrong for government to prohibit racism. Racist people will have to answer to God for their sins, as will people who attempt to use the force of government to impose non-racist beliefs on racist people.
good stuff

[Natalie]

I myself am not a racist, but I don't see why it is illegal for someone who owns a business to deny someone a job based on race, or to sell somebody something. I'll probably get flamed for saying that, but it makes no sense to me. If let's say an Italian starts up a business here and only wants to hire people that are related to his culture here in the U.S, what would give the Gov the right to step in if he denied someone a job in his business for being a different european race, or african american, etc? Doesn't this fit in with the freedom to associate with who you want?

While I understand what you're saying, I actually totally agree with the Civil Rights Act. I believe in small government as much as the next guy, but when the CRA was made, drastic action needed to be taken. Racism was completely out of control.

[erowe1]

While I understand what you're saying, I actually totally agree with the Civil Rights Act. I believe in small government as much as the next guy, but when the CRA was made, drastic action needed to be taken. Racism was completely out of control.

I take it, then, that you must also support the cause of the Union in the Civil War?

This is an honest question, because I can't see how you can support the right of the federal government to impose a law on the entire nation while still saying that states should be able to secede so as to avoid the constrictions of federal laws.

[MRoCkEd]

Here's Ron Paul's statement against the Civil Rights act:

The Trouble With Forced Integration (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html)

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.


Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

July 3, 2004

[literatim]

I stumbled on this video while looking up this topic, so I thought I'd post it.

A Conversation About Race (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1084394769627714346)

[JoshLowry]

The Constitution doesn't and can't grant people actual rights. It can only recognize them and be either right or wrong in doing so. It is true that it can "grant" rights in nothing more than a purely legal sense. But this is something much less than the basic idea of genuine God given rights to which I assume Mr. Theocrat refers.

And I think that distinction is important. There is one question, whether racism is actually wrong according to an absolute moral standard (and if no such standard exists then this is a moot question, since there would thus be no such thing as absolute right or wrong). And then there is a second question, whether the kind of human government that ought to exist on earth is such that it ought to prohibit racism. The second question is still a question of moral absolutes (what ought a government do?). But it is still a different question. And if that second question is to be answered "No. A government ought not to prohibit racism." then the right to be racist only exists in the lesser purely legal sense. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is actually morally right to have racist thoughts.

My understanding (and I don't claim to have perfect understanding of all questions of morality) is that it is wrong (i.e. not right) to be racist, but that it is also wrong for government to prohibit racism. Racist people will have to answer to God for their sins, as will people who attempt to use the force of government to impose non-racist beliefs on racist people.

Well said. I see racism as morally wrong, I just don't like big government.

[Optatron]

While I understand what you're saying, I actually totally agree with the Civil Rights Act. I believe in small government as much as the next guy, but when the CRA was made, drastic action needed to be taken.


You believe in small government as long as somebody's freedom doesn't hurt your feelings?



Racism was completely out of control.

that's what you pay for freedom, people won't be nice if they don't have to, you can't say you believe in freedom of choice and association, and then say racism is such a bad thing you wish it wasn't so out of control.

[Optatron]

I take it, then, that you must also support the cause of the Union in the Civil War?

This is an honest question, because I can't see how you can support the right of the federal government to impose a law on the entire nation while still saying that states should be able to secede so as to avoid the constrictions of federal laws.

Sounds like, I believe in freedom as long as I benefit from it.

Or maybe she believes a person has the right (legal right, legal protect entitlement) to be free from discrimination?

[erowe1]

Sounds like, I believe in freedom as long as I benefit from it.

Or maybe she believes a person has the right (legal right, legal protect entitlement) to be free from discrimination?

I didn't mean to put words in her mouth. I don't presume to know what her position is. She's obviously not a libertarian. But then neither am I in a strict sense. Ron Paul draws a lot of people from diverse perspectives to support him. And if somebody who is far from being a libertarian supports him, I don't begrudge the possibility that they might still have very good reasons for that. After all, there aren't many politicians who oppose both welfarism and warfarism the way Ron Paul does, and if you do oppose both of those things, then it would make sense to put other issues at a lower priority and get behind someone like RP.

[Optatron]

I didn't mean to put words in her mouth. I don't presume to know what her position is. She's obviously not a libertarian.


Ouch!



But then neither am I in a strict sense.


But at least you admit it.



Ron Paul draws a lot of people from diverse perspectives to support him. And if somebody who is far from being a libertarian supports him, I don't begrudge the possibility that they might still have very good reasons for that.


yes, that's what freedom is and means, the best for everybody.



After all, there aren't many politicians who oppose both welfarism and warfarism the way Ron Paul does, and if you do oppose both of those things, then it would make sense to put other issues at a lower priority and get behind someone like RP.

Welfarism, warfarism, racism, man, that's a lot of enemies!

[libertarian4321]

I myself am not a racist,

As the great Clayton Bigsby once said, "if you have hate in your heart, let it out!" Why lie?


but I don't see why it is illegal for someone who owns a business to deny someone a job based on race


I don't know about any specific applicable laws, but the Supreme Court has consistently held that you can't deny a job or services to a minority member based on the commerce clause of the Constitution.

I believe the commerce clause has been used to justify a lot of inappropriate big government intervention, but this is one case where I don't have a problem with it. Racism isn't only stupid and harmful to people, it hurts the nation.

If you don't like it, start a business, deny service to black customers, and take your case to the Supreme Court.

I'll enjoy watching you lose, lol.

[ClayTrainor]

All you've told me is that a racist individual has a right to be racist because he can think that way. I asked from where or from whom does he get the "right" to think racist thoughts. Non-infringement of others' rights is a different subject.

The fact that he has a brain, gives him the right to freedom of thought.

The fact that he has a flappy piece of meat in his mouth, that makes unique noses when his muscles in his neck vibrate, gives him his freedom of speech.

These rights come from our creator, whatever you believe that to be, not from the government, the constitution, the bible or your specific interpretation of God.

You have the right to have any thoughts and say anything you want, but you do not have the right to force your will on people or violate their individual rights.

[Optatron]

The fact that he has a brain, gives him the right to freedom of thought.

The fact that he has a flappy piece of meat in his mouth, that makes unique noses when his muscles in his neck vibrate, gives him his freedom of speech.

These rights come from our creator, whatever you believe that to be, not from the government, the constitution, the bible or your specific interpretation of God.

You have the right to have any thoughts and say anything you want, but you do not have the right to force your will on people or violate their individual rights.

you're not the first person to repeat this to this man, but you can't get him to swallow it.

[ClayTrainor]

While I understand what you're saying, I actually totally agree with the Civil Rights Act. I believe in small government as much as the next guy, but when the CRA was made, drastic action needed to be taken. Racism was completely out of control.

There were no black cops, and very very few black government workers at the time that the Civil Rights Act was passed.

The government was the one who caused the majority of violent racism, police brutality, etc. and they didn't need to tell private businesses how they should run.

Government shouldn't be allowed to hire based on race, since it's publicly owned, but private businesses should, if they are that ignorant. It's their property and no law should be imposed on them, until they violate the basic rights of others.

[Optatron]

As the great Clayton Bigsby once said, "if you have hate in your heart, let it out!" Why lie?

I don't know about any specific applicable laws, but the Supreme Court has consistently held that you can't deny a job or services to a minority member based on the commerce clause of the Constitution.

I believe the commerce clause has been used to justify a lot of inappropriate big government intervention, but this is one case where I don't have a problem with it. Racism isn't only stupid and harmful to people, it hurts the nation.

If you don't like it, start a business, deny service to black customers, and take your case to the Supreme Court.

I'll enjoy watching you lose, lol.

in short, you believe the government has a right to put the interest of a nation above and before a person's right to do business as he pleases.

commerce clause of the Constitution has been abused, but you agree with some of it?

[fedup100]

He didn't say being racist should be illegal. He questioned whether there is a right to be racist. Remember, you can support the legality of doing something without believing we have a right to do it.

Any human being should have the right to think what ever they please. They need not be given permission.

[Optatron]

There were no black cops, and very very few black government workers at the time that the Civil Rights Act was passed.

The government was the one who caused the majority of violent racism, police brutality, etc. and they didn't need to tell private businesses how they should run.

Governments shouldn't be allowed to hire based on race, since it's publicly owned, but private businesses should, if they are that ignorant. It's their property and no law should be imposed on them, until they violate the basic rights of others.

this is where most liberals will punch you hard, if they believe "basic rights" includes the right to be treated equally, as a legally enforceable contract, entitlement, and obligation.

What do you think Natalie? is discrimination on skin color in a private business a violation of a customer's basic right? Or does a business have a basic right to deny service to anybody for any excuse he chooses?

[Optatron]

Any human being should have the right to think what ever they please. They need not be given permission.


http://oneyearbibleimages.com/amen.jpg

[MRoCkEd]

Any human being should have the right to think what ever they please. They need not be given permission.
Should have the right or does have the right?
I'll assume you mean the latter.

Okay, so you believe people have the right to think what they want.
But do they have the right to discriminate based on color?
Note: This is not the same as asking if it should be legal or illegal.
I believe discrimination should be legal in private practice, but I don't think this is a matter of rights.

[libertarian4321]

in short, you believe the government has a right to put the interest of a nation above and before a person's right to do business as he pleases.

commerce clause of the Constitution has been abused, but you agree with some of it?

I didn't say I agreed with it, but this is one case where I'm sure as Hell not going to make a stink about it. The proper thing to do, of course, would be to pass state/local laws and/or a Constitutional amendment to prevent this sort of practice.

I'll let the racist above waste his time and money on this losing cause if he chooses to do so (and I'll chuckle when he goes down in flames).

[Optatron]

Should have the right or does have the right?
I'll assume you mean the latter.


Since rights, and ownership are concepts, they are not much different.

Saying you SHOULD own your car, and you DO own your car, are not much different.

Essentially, he believes it's the correct concept that somebody has the right, or the right belongs to a person.



Okay, so you believe people have the right to think what they want.
But do they have the right to discriminate based on color?


As long as it's his property.



Note: This is not the same as asking if it should be legal or illegal.


Why should it be illegal if it's not immoral?



I believe discrimination should be legal in private practice, but I don't think this is a matter of rights.

Something is legal though you have no explicit right to it?

[ClayTrainor]

this is where most liberals will punch you hard, if they believe "basic rights" includes the right to be treated equally, as a legally enforceable contract, entitlement, and obligation.


And unfortunately a majority of todays so-called "liberals" are socialists, so they don't even really believe in property rights. :(

[Optatron]

And unfortunately a majority of todays so-called "liberals" are socialists, so they don't even really believe in property rights. :(

yes, they put human life and "social justice" above property.

in short, their life is more important than your stupid choices and freedoms.

[ClayTrainor]

yes, they put human life and "social justice" above property.

We all put human life above property, but that doesn't justify theft.

Socialists justify theft, violence and coercion in order to "protect" human life, when there are much more moral solutions. Their intentions are good, but their endorsed actions are evil.



in short, their life is more important than your stupid choices and freedoms.

and it is, if i am infringing on their right to life somehow, but i'm not, so they should just leave me and my hard earned wealth alone :)

[Optatron]

We all put human life above property, but that doesn't justify theft.


No, not if you believe your property and choice is more important than a person's life. Theft IS justified if you believe a person's life is more valuable than your right to property.



Socialists justify theft, violence and coercion in order to "protect" human life, when there are much more moral solutions. Their intentions are good, but their endorsed actions are evil.


Yes, obviously evil to your standards.



and it is, if i am infringing on their right to life somehow, but i'm not, so they should just leave me and my hard earned wealth alone :)

no it's not to you.

you believe you have a choice to how to give and share your property, and their life comes secondary, and you don't consider owning what you own INFRINGEMENT on them (if you believed their life is above your choices, then this would be considered deprivation, exclusion and infringment)

[ClayTrainor]

No, not if you believe your property and choice is more important than a person's life.
My property is my own, their life is their own.

It is my choice what to do with my property, and anyone who takes my property is committing theft.

I donate monthly to many charities including a Sick Kids hospital. I do not value my property over the lives of others, but i do value property rights and Liberty, over life itself, as my life is also my property. You can't have a functioning society, when every one is justified in stealing from one another, if their situation is bad enough.

"Those who are willing to trade freedom for security, deserve neither and will lose both" - Ben Franklin



Theft IS justified if you believe a person's life is more valuable than your right to property.


No, it isn't. It might be justified in your own mind, but you should still be charged with the crime that you committed.



Yes, obviously evil to your standards.


Very much so. If everyone who was sick and dying, had the ability to steal from me, and i was not justified to do anything about it, than i would have nothing left to donate to sick childrens hospital, amongst other charities. I would not be nearly as inspired to keep producing wealth, in order to make life better for myself, and others as I would not rightfully own that which i've earned, under your logic.

Just because you need something, you don't get to justify theft. Those who produce have a right to what they earn, and sometimes what is produced can save lives. That doesn't mean that the producer should be forced to save lives, just as Doctors shouldn't be forced to work for free!




you believe you have a choice to how to give and share your property, and their life comes secondary, and you don't consider owning what you own INFRINGEMENT on them
Economics isn't a zero-sum game, buddy ;)

[Optatron]

My property is my own, their life is their own.

It is my choice what to do with my property, and anyone who takes my property is committing theft.


Yes, that's a definition of property which you and I can agree with, just telling you socialists do not accept that.




I donate monthly to many charities including a Sick Kids hospital. I do not value my property over the lives of others, but i do value property rights and Liberty, over life itself. You can't have a functioning society, when every one is justified in stealing from one another, if their situation is bad enough.


I understand your perspective.




"Those who are willing to trade freedom for security, deserve neither and will lose both" - Ben Franklin


I start to wonder sometimes if that was quote mined.



No, it isn't. It might be justified in your own mind, but you should still be charged with the crime that you committed.

you can only be charged with a crime if there's a person to recognize and enforce that as a crime.



Very much so. If everyone who was sick and dying, had the ability to steal from me, and i was not justified to do anything about it, than i would have nothing left to donate to sick childrens hospital, amongst other charities. I would not be nearly as inspired to keep producing wealth, in order to make life better for myself, as I would not rightfully own that which i've earned, under your logic.


Not my logic, I'm totally with you on property, I'm just conveying the socialist logic.




Just because you need something, you don't get to justify theft. Those who produce have a right to what they earn.


Understood.



Economics isn't a zero-sum game, buddy ;)
it isn't? then why is stealing wrong?

[ClayTrainor]

Yes, that's a definition of property which you and I can agree with, just telling you socialists do not accept that.



Gotcha :)



I start to wonder sometimes if that was quote mined.


I think Ben Franklin said this phrase far more than once, and even in slightly different ways.



you can only be charged with a crime if there's a person to recognize and enforce that as a crime.


True enough.


Not my logic, I'm totally with you on property, I'm just conveying the socialist logic.



Sorry for my misunderstandin :)

You're a good devils advocate ;)



it isn't? then why is stealing wrong?

Because, that which i own is my property, which i produced, earned or inherited somehow. If they steal my computer, i can easily find another one, but I will have to pay for it. If for some reason, all the computers in the world have been bought up, than a company will start producing more. Things are produced based on consumer demands, and they can be limited, but that doesn't mean it's a "zero-sum" game :)

[Optatron]

Gotcha :)



I think Ben Franklin said this phrase far more than once, and even in slightly different ways.


Please find them for me if you can, not challenging you, I really want to read it! Thanks!



True enough.

Sorry for my misunderstandin :)

You're a good devils advocate ;)


I really want to get people who are suspected non-libertarians to admit their lack of respect for private property if it's true to them.




Because, that which i own is my property, which i produced, earned or inherited somehow. If they steal my computer, i can easily find another one, but I will have to pay for it. If for some reason, all the computers in the world have been bought up, than a company will start producing more. Things are produced based on consumer demands, and they can be limited, but that doesn't mean it's a "zero-sum" game :)

you sound like you're all over the place, sounds like you're saying SOME things and SOME parts of the economy is zero sum and limited, but not all.

[ClayTrainor]

Please find them for me if you can, not challenging you, I really want to read it! Thanks!


Go here http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Than hit ctrl+F (To find text on the page), and search for "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Hope this helps :)



I really want to get people who are suspected non-libertarians to admit their lack of respect for private property if it's true to them.


interesting



you sound like you're all over the place, sounds like you're saying SOME things and SOME parts of the economy is zero sum and limited, but not all.

What i'm saying is, things can be limited based on the principles of supply + demand but, that doesn't mean it's a zero-sum game.

Money, wealth, innovation, technology, medical advancements etc. are not zero-sum games, the only limitation is the rate of production, which can only be based on consumer demand.

I will admit that Limited resources, like fossil fuels obviously are zero-sum to an extent, as the earth only has so many of them.

[Optatron]

What i'm saying is, things can be limited based on the principles of supply + demand but, that doesn't mean it's a zero-sum game.

Money, wealth, innovation, technology, medical advancements etc. are not zero-sum games, the only limitation is the rate of production, which can only be based on consumer demand.

I will admit that Limited resources, like fossil fuels obviously are zero-sum to an extent, as the earth only has so many of them.

given that there's a limit to how long we live, how long we can work, isn't the "rate of production" effectively a scarcity in many cases?

If you're dying of thirst in the middle of a desert, to which you'll die within an hour if you don't drink something, will it matter if you're thrown in the ocean the next day?

[Optatron]

Go here http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin


Just looked, even so much that I only searched SAFETY or SECURITY, and it appeared ONCE officially, all others were rephrased variants.

[ClayTrainor]

given that there's a limit to how long we live, how long we can work, isn't the "rate of production" effectively a scarcity in many cases?


Well, hopefully those that produce will pass their knowledge and tools on to the next generation.

The only limitation is the human ability to produce, so i guess i agree with you to an extent, but it isn't zero-sum because the ability to produce doesn't go away, unless someone is violating your rights.



If you're dying of thirst in the middle of a desert, to which you'll die within an hour if you don't drink something, will it matter if you're thrown in the ocean the next day?

Nope, you'd be a goner. I don't get your point?

[t0rnado]

My rights are derived from the property which I own. If I don't want to allow someone who wears a red shirt on my property, it's my choice. If I don't want Bin Laden on my property, it's my choice. The employer grants the employee the priviledge to work for them so the employer has the right to discriminate on any basis. If employment was a right, then the employer wouldn't be able to discriminate.

It would be a dumb business move, however, to refuse to hire someone on the basis of skin color.

[ClayTrainor]

Just looked, even so much that I only searched SAFETY or SECURITY, and it appeared ONCE officially, all others were rephrased variants.

yea, but it does seem as though he said it, or at least something very similar.

It's hard to know how accurate any of these old quotes are, unless they are found in handwritten letters.

[Optatron]

Nope, you'd be a goner. I don't get your point?

my point is, there is no difference between rate of production and actual scarcity as soon as you factor in some people can't afford to wait.

If you're dying from thirst within an hour, it doesn't matter to you there's a world of water you can drown in, IF YOU DON'T GET IT, YOU WON'T LIVE. For that situation alone, it's as ZERO SUM as it gets for your life.

[Optatron]

yea, but it does seem as though he said it, or at least something very similar.

It's hard to know how accurate any of these old quotes are, unless they are found in handwritten letters.

which is why it's unfair to overquote it or quote mine it without some regard to context and actual meaning.

notice in the original , he says ESSENTIAL liberty for TEMPORARY SAFETY

that's quite different than ALL or any liberty for LONG TERM safety.

[Optatron]

My rights are derived from the property which I own.

but who's to say you own it?

[Objectivist]

I myself am not a racist, but I don't see why it is illegal for someone who owns a business to deny someone a job based on race, or to sell somebody something. I'll probably get flamed for saying that, but it makes no sense to me. If let's say an Italian starts up a business here and only wants to hire people that are related to his culture here in the U.S, what would give the Gov the right to step in if he denied someone a job in his business for being a different european race, or african american, etc? Doesn't this fit in with the freedom to associate with who you want?

Exactly and I have the freedom to shop where I so choose.

I'd rather eat at a Soul Food Joint owned and operated by Blacks.

[nbhadja]

As the great Clayton Bigsby once said, "if you have hate in your heart, let it out!" Why lie?



I don't know about any specific applicable laws, but the Supreme Court has consistently held that you can't deny a job or services to a minority member based on the commerce clause of the Constitution.

I believe the commerce clause has been used to justify a lot of inappropriate big government intervention, but this is one case where I don't have a problem with it. Racism isn't only stupid and harmful to people, it hurts the nation.

If you don't like it, start a business, deny service to black customers, and take your case to the Supreme Court.

I'll enjoy watching you lose, lol.

When the government takes action, they CAUSE more racism then they stop. The only difference is that people will accept the racism (discriminating against Asians and Whites through affirmative action for example).

Freedom is not perfect, but it is 1000000 times better than tyranny and big government.

Business owners should have the right to decide who to serve to and who to hire. That is what freedom is all about.

I guess next we should force men to date overweight women that they find attractive? :rolleyes:

[nbhadja]

There were no black cops, and very very few black government workers at the time that the Civil Rights Act was passed.

The government was the one who caused the majority of violent racism, police brutality, etc. and they didn't need to tell private businesses how they should run.

Government shouldn't be allowed to hire based on race, since it's publicly owned, but private businesses should, if they are that ignorant. It's their property and no law should be imposed on them, until they violate the basic rights of others.

great explanation

[ClayTrainor]

my point is, there is no difference between rate of production and actual scarcity as soon as you factor in some people can't afford to wait.


Yes there is, because when something is actually scarce there is nothing a single human being can do about it but, when it's scarce due to lack of production humans can produce more to compensate for that demand.



If you're dying from thirst within an hour, it doesn't matter to you there's a world of water you can drown in, IF YOU DON'T GET IT, YOU WON'T LIVE. For that situation alone, it's as ZERO SUM as it gets for your life.

Yea, humans need water to live, and if you get stuck without it for too long you're gonna die... Economics is not a zero-sum game, and the only reason that person wasn't able to get water was because they were obviously not near a marketplace.

[Optatron]

Yes there is, because when something is actually scarce there is nothing a single human being can do about it but, when it's scarce due to lack of production humans can produce more to compensate for that demand.


But in the case of you being in the middle of the desert and not knowing where water is to be found, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.



Yea, humans need water to live, and if you get stuck without it for too long you're gonna die... Economics is not a zero-sum game, and the only reason that person wasn't able to get water was because they were obviously not near a marketplace.

yes, and the fact either marketplaces are actually scarce or just not produced fast enough have the SAME RESULT.

[ClayTrainor]

But in the case of you being in the middle of the desert and not knowing where water is to be found, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.



yes, and the fact either marketplaces are actually scarce or just not produced fast enough have the SAME RESULT.

i barely even know what we're talking about anymore, haha.

So much for "Racism" :p

[Optatron]

i barely even know what we're talking about anymore, haha.

So much for "Racism" :p

you forgot that I debunked your statement that "scarcity and rate of production are different"

they're NOT, once you consider time, place, luck, and life.