Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discrimination?

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

1750Texan said:

Selling property[real] and selling a product[goods and services] is not the same.

There is a differnce in selling my truck[property] on craigslist and having a car lot[property][business][rules, regulations, laws]selling cars to the public.

Click to expand...

sorry no.... everything about you is property.

James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.


a bigot is a bigot, it does not matter whether you like or hate the bigot, a bigot has...... right to property.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:

sorry no.... everything about you is property.

James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.


a bigot is a bigot, it does not matter whether you like or hate the bigot, a bigot has...... right to property.

Click to expand...

You wonder why librtarians are not renamed as PROPERTYTARIANS?

Oh wait ........ LIBERTY is a much more appealing shade of lipstick on the pig that mere PROPERTY is.

Never mind.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:

The collective acts of actual (majority power) racists permeates society.

Individual whites can be racist, because they have the power to institute the systematic oppression of another race, which is what racism really is.

Click to expand...

No, they can't, because they are not society. They are individuals, and in your system it must be a society that is racist.

Apparently, also, that society must correlate precisely with the borders of a nation-state. So, for example, a neighborhood of black kids who all hate and regularly abuse the one white kid solely because he is white aren't acting out racism, because that society is contained within a larger society, and so the micro-society that they actually live in somehow doesn't count as a "society" that is capable of being racist.



I think the standard you are proposing is self-defeating on top of being blatantly at odds with observable reality. I've met plenty of racist black people, racist arab people, racist japanese people, so on and so forth. You could say that for years whites had their racism confirmed and enabled by the state and power broker institutions within our civil society, but to translate that to therefore only whites can be racist is to make leap that cannot be supported and flies in the face of the evidence at hand.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:

Okay, I'll play along for just a bit more.

First, redheads are not a protected class in our laws, but let's pretend they are for your scenario. The protected classes are:

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination ActAs an individual, I do not have the authority to force anyone to do or not do anything, other than to prevent them from harming me physically or threatening my life or property. No individual does.

As to the government however, we as a people have established guidelines to conduct ourselves. These guidelines include prohibitions against discrimination of the certain protected classes, in certain public interactions.

These prohibitions do not restrict private association or non-association. They only affect public association of groups or entities.

For instance, a business is a separate entity, that is granted a license to enter into commerce. Our Constitution grants Congress the right to regulate Commerce in the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Each state also has the power to regulate commerce as well within its borders. As do local municipalities.

Each municipality, state, as well as the Congress, has sets of laws, regulations, statutes, ordinances and rules such as zoning that regulate commerce.

This has been the way our government and our society has operated since day one.

Does this clarify my position better?

Click to expand...

Christonacracker, that list encompasses just about everyone in the country. You fall into one of those categories somewhere. I am of Irish and German descent. I would assume (if the laws are FAIR) that both of them qualify for "National Origin".

If "Religion" is a protected class, why the angst against the people whose religious beliefs tell them that sodomy is a sin (NO, I am not in that number, just thinking aloud).

Redheads should not be a protected class. Blondes, on the other hand, should. I am blonde.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:

You wonder why librtarians are not renamed as PROPERTYTARIANS?

Oh wait ........ LIBERTY is a much more appealing shade of lipstick on the pig that mere PROPERTY is.

Never mind.

Click to expand...

as it has been stated by me to you before, everything about a person is property.

OR...are you forgetting the women state they have a right to their bodies, when it comes to abortion.

you have a funny sense of liberty, believing it should be crushed when it offends you.....I don't think you ever consider how your words, and thoughts of government offend other people....maybe we should crush your right to speech, because people "just don't like what you say"

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

tres borrachos said:

Christonacracker, that list encompasses just about everyone in the country. You fall into one of those categories somewhere. I am of Irish and German descent. I would assume (if the laws are FAIR) that both of them qualify for "National Origin".

If "Religion" is a protected class, why the angst against the people whose religious beliefs tell them that sodomy is a sin (NO, I am not in that number, just thinking aloud).

Redheads should not be a protected class. Blondes, on the other hand, should. I am blonde.

Click to expand...

:lamo: .. :thumbs:

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:

as it has been stated by me to you before, everything about a person is property.

OR...are you forgetting the women state they have a right to their bodies, when it comes to abortion.

you have a funny sense of liberty, believing it should be crushed when it offends you.....I don't think you ever consider how your words, and thoughts of government offend other people....maybe we should crush your right to speech, because people "just don't like what you say"

Click to expand...

And you have a funny sense of liberty. Of course, I realize its just a smokescreen and by itself means anything you want it to mean.

What does a person controlling their reproductive processes have to do with being a bigot and denying other people public accommodations?

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:

And you have a funny sense of liberty. Of course, I realize its just a smokescreen and by itself means anything you want it to mean.

What does a person controlling their reproductive processes have to do with being a bigot and denying other people public accommodations?

Click to expand...

easy, because a woman claims........".right to property, her body, to have an abortion"..............which abortion is offensive to other people

if the left is going to be for a woman having the ability to do with her body [property] because its hers and preform an action which is offensive to some people.

then my business is my property, and I have a right to it, whether you find it offensive or not.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

tres borrachos said:

That bolded part really jumped out at me. I never thought of it that way but you are so right. We do now have a system of negatives and it's pretty concerning when you frame it as such.

Click to expand...

All law is a balancing of rights against each other. People only frame it as a 'negative right' when they're against the protections that should be afforded.

I suppose murder being illegal is a 'negative right' as well, if one is fond of murder.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

cpwill said:

No, they can't, because they are not society. They are individuals, and in your system it must be a society that is racist.

Click to expand...

hahaha

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:

All law is a balancing of rights against each other. People only frame it as a 'negative right' when they're against the protections that should be afforded.

I suppose murder being illegal is a 'negative right' as well, if one is fond of murder.

Click to expand...

Actually that falls under your right not to have your property seized or taken or abused without your consent - your ownership of yourself is your basic claim to freedom from abuse; which is why slaves did not have it.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:

And if you aren't a member of a protected class?

Click to expand...

what are these protected classes i here so much about please list them. Then give me an example of a person who isnt in one because I cant think of any.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:

All law is a balancing of rights against each other. People only frame it as a 'negative right' when they're against the protections that should be afforded.

I suppose murder being illegal is a 'negative right' as well, if one is fond of murder.

Click to expand...

Jesus..no.

A positive right requires others to provide you with either a good or service, while a negative right only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions. Natural rights are all negative, btw.

The reason positive rights declarations are in conflict with peoples rights is that they require action to exist. In effect, they place people into servitude for the benefit of others.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

cpwill said:

Actually that falls under your right not to have your property seized or taken or abused without your consent - your ownership of yourself is your basic claim to freedom from abuse; which is why slaves did not have it.

Click to expand...

The slaves didn't have it because people considered slaves' freedom to be a negative right. Unlike their own, which is a positive right.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Also on a side not racism is racism PERIOD.

any person can practice racism and be racist.

If one would like to discuss the size of the impact being greater or smaller thats fine but that doesnt change the fact that racism is racism.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Henrin said:

Jesus..no.

A positive right requires others to provide you with either a good or service, while a negative right only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions. Natural rights are all negative, btw.

The reason positive rights declarations are in conflict with peoples rights is that they require action to exist. In effect, they place people into servitude for the benefit of others.

Click to expand...

And you don't consider refusal of service without cause to be interfering with their actions? Of course it is, you just refuse to frame it as such because you're coming from a totally self centered and myopic perspective, entirely void of any sociological considerations.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:

The slaves didn't have it because people considered slaves' freedom to be a negative right. Unlike their own, which is a positive right.

Click to expand...

You are confusing the terms. Negative Rights do not mean "no rights".

Here you go:

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

cpwill said:

You are confusing the terms. Negative Rights do not mean "no rights".

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's your claim.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:

And you don't consider refusal of service without cause to be interfering with their actions?

Click to expand...

That is correct - they are not being forced upon. For example, if I were to demand that you mow my lawn for $1, and you were to refuse, you would not be violating my rights by refusing me that service.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:

I'm pretty sure that's your claim.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you either don't know what you are talking about, or are playing the part of clown. Enjoy the video.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

cpwill said:

That is correct - they are not being forced upon. For example, if I were to demand that you mow my lawn for $1, and you were to refuse, you would not be violating my rights by refusing me that service.

Click to expand...

By eliminating their freedom of choice and business association -in the public sphere-, you are interfering with their actions. You are trying to make life hard on them. You are waging economic war, you are employing aggression against a group.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:

By eliminating their freedom of choice and business association -in the public sphere-, you are interfering with their actions. You are trying to make life hard on them. You are waging economic war, you are employing aggression against a group.

Click to expand...

Now you are engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric, which is an excellent indication that you have come (belatedly) to the realization that you have no solid supporting logic to bring to bear. You also seem to be (again) confused in your terminology. For example, if you refused to mow my lawn for a dollar, you haven't "eliminated my freedom of choice and business association", you've simply chosen to exercise your own. If, however, you were to use the power of the state to keep me from being able to hire anyone to mow my lawn for a dollar, then you would be engaging in that action - because then my freedom of choice and business association would actually be "eliminated".

Failure to make one trade does not deny either participant the ability to make any trade, else we would have no choice but war over every non-infinite resource.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:

And you don't consider refusal of service without cause to be interfering with their actions? Of course it is, you just refuse to frame it as such because you're coming from a totally self centered and myopic perspective, entirely void of any sociological considerations.

Click to expand...

No, refusing to take part in a transaction is not interfering with the other parties actions. The other party was just as free before the refusal of service as they are after it.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

cpwill said:

Now you are engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric, which is an excellent indication that you have come (belatedly) to the realization that you have no solid supporting logic to bring to bear.

Click to expand...

You are restricting their freedom of movement and opportunity within the public sphere. This is an infringement upon their rights, an attack on the free market, fraud and blatant aggression against a group.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:

By eliminating their freedom of choice and business association -in the public sphere-, you are interfering with their actions. You are trying to make life hard on them. You are waging economic war, you are employing aggression against a group.

Click to expand...

No, it is upholding the freedom of choice as it is upholding both parties right to choose to take part in a transaction of property and service or not.