• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abraham Lincoln - Right or Wrong?

captainawesome said:
Where cry baby is someone who whines about law that isn't going to change over and over and over. Like the law that bans white only apartment buildings for example.
Click to expand...

Are you one of those people that doesn't wish to hear any sort of disagreement with this law? I have noticed over the years that whenever I bring it up I almost always will be a called racist at some point, people will defend the law by itself and then go back to racism charges. Of course, at some point they will mention that they are open to the public and will of course almost always say something about it being unfair and or a violation of the peoples rights if they are not allowed in a businesses. Of course, none of those charges have any merit, but alas, that is par for the course when defending this law.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Why cry about rights being violated by the state? What an odd question.
Click to expand...

Hey, stop being so uppity and do what your told. And quit your whining! ;)
 
Henrin said:
Are you one of those people that doesn't wish to hear any sort of disagreement with this law? I have noticed over the years that whenever I bring it up I almost always will be a called racist at some point, people will defend the law by itself and then go back to racism charges. Of course, at some point they will mention that they are open to the public and will of course almost always say something about it being unfair and or a violation of the peoples rights if they are not allowed in a businesses. Of course, none of those charges have any merit, but alas, that is par for the course when defending this law.
Click to expand...

It is a good and just law. That you harp on it forever begs the question why you want to go back to the old days of discrimination.
 
Henrin said:
I gave you reality to support my view and you gave me the law to support the law. You figure it out.

Supporting my view details that I look how people behave with property in nature and society and I did that. What you did was say its the law and when you got cornered repeat that it's the law.
Click to expand...

I live in the nation which has those laws that I used to explain reality to you and how we deal with property and balancing the rights of people.

You gave me your fantasyland where you get to make it up as you go along. Lots of people look at things the way they want to. Those who do so crossing the border between reality and fantasy tend to have real problems.
 
haymarket said:
I live in the nation which has those laws that I used to explain reality to you and how we deal with property and balancing the rights of people.
Click to expand...

There is no rights to balance, so that doesn't fly, sorry. They have no right of access towards the property in question and the other individual has the right to control access. Do you think that when we consider rights we should decide which rights to violate and which to not? If you do, then sorry, but that is the wrong approach to take in a free society.

You gave me your fantasyland where you get to make it up as you go along. Lots of people look at things the way they want to. Those who do so crossing the border between reality and fantasy tend to have real problems.
Click to expand...

My view is supported by reality itself, so I have little idea what you are talking about. Do you think law is all there is to consider?
 
captainawesome said:
It is a good and just law. That you harp on it forever begs the question why you want to go back to the old days of discrimination.
Click to expand...

Any law that violates the rights of people can not be a good and just law, sorry.

I already explained to you that it has nothing to do with a desire to discriminate or go back to days of old, but a desire to restore rights stripped by the state.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Any law that violates the rights of people can not be a good and just law, sorry.

I already explained to you that it has nothing to do with a desire to discriminate or go back to days of old, but a desire to restore rights stripped by the state.
Click to expand...

The right to have a business that discriminates is what you want. We aren't going back to those days.

There are many constitutional rights that have been lost and or are in real danger. That you focus on being able to open a white only drug store seems odd.
 
captainawesome said:
The right to have a business that discriminates is what you want. We aren't going back to those days.
Click to expand...

Then you're refusing to respect the rights of people to control access to their property due to fear of discrimination.

There are many constitutional rights that have been lost and or are in real danger. That you focus on being able to open a white only drug store seems odd.
Click to expand...

I talk of many issues dealing with such things. This issue here I just enjoy talking about and find it interesting how no one can seem to muster up a good argument to support the law.
 
Henrin. I see that your lean says libertarian. Is your stance based upon the non-aggression principle?

If I understand what the libertarians are saying, it is that it is always wrong to initiate violence against another person. Thus, it is wrong to initiate violence against a person in order to force him to grant access to his property.

So, while the property owner who excludes people for no other reason than that they are white, black, straight, gay, etc. may be acting in an abhorrent manner, he is not actually initiating violence against anyone, and therefore it would be wrong to initiate violence against him to make him comply with your wishes?

I'm just trying to understand the libertarian reasoning on this issue.
 
Henrin said:
Then you're refusing to respect the rights of people to control access to their property due to fear of discrimination.



I talk of many issues dealing with such things. This issue here I just enjoy talking about and find it interesting how no one can seem to muster up a good argument to support the law.
Click to expand...

Correct I don't respect the right of a business to discriminate. We live in a modern society. Any business uses resources paid for by everyone. These include roads, electrical grid, fire protection, police and many more.

The right to private property is not absolute. This is doubly true if a business.

Therefore a small town with one grocery store may not refuse to sell food to the black people or Eskimos or elderly etc.
 
captainawesome said:
Correct I don't respect the right of a business to discriminate. We live in a modern society. Any business uses resources paid for by everyone. These include roads, electrical grid, fire protection, police and many more.
Click to expand...

Everyone uses such things. Does that mean the state gets to take away their rights too?

The right to private property is not absolute. This is doubly true if a business.
Click to expand...

Was that an argument or just an attempt at one? Did you somehow miss my dam example?

Therefore a small town with one grocery store may not refuse to sell food to the black people or Eskimos or elderly etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got it, thanks. Your argument is complete gibberish though. Just because people are using resources paid for by everyone does not mean the state can restrict their rights. Btw, haymarket already tried the "roads" crap some pages ago and it failed horribly.
 
Federalist said:
The constitution only applies to the states that are currently members of the compact it establishes. A state that quits the union is no longer a party to the compact.
Click to expand...
And where in the Constitution does it say that?
 
Henrin said:
Everyone uses such things. Does that mean the state gets to take away their rights too?



Was that an argument or just an attempt at one? Did you somehow miss my dam example?



Yeah, I got it, thanks. Your argument is complete gibberish though. Just because people are using resources paid for by everyone does not mean the state can restrict their rights. Btw, haymarket already tried the "roads" crap some pages ago and it failed horribly.
Click to expand...

You fail to understand the state through the power of we the people have curbed the right of a business to discriminate.

You may not like that. You may want to go back to those good old days but they shall never return. Private property has never been absolute.
 
captainawesome said:
You fail to understand the state through the power of we the people have curbed the right of a business to discriminate.
Click to expand...

I fail to understand the government passed a law? Interesting, because I thought that was what we were talking about the entire time. Perhaps the problem is that you can't get past your own lack of an argument so you keep going over the same thing over and over again? Btw, I see you abandoned your "they are using a government service so the government can violate their rights argument" Good to see, as it applied to you too.

You may not like that. You may want to go back to those good old days but they shall never return. Private property has never been absolute.
Click to expand...

Private property includes the right to control access for whatever reason the owner sees fit. By doing so the owner does not violate the rights of other people and so the state has no justification to use its domain of force towards it for such actions. If you read the thread you would have noticed I mentioned an example where the actions of a property owner violates the rights of someone else, but this is not one of those cases.
 
Henrin said:
I fail to understand the government passed a law? Interesting, because I thought that was what we were talking about the entire time. Perhaps the problem is that you can't get past your own lack of an argument so you keep going over the same thing over and over again? Btw, I see you abandoned your "they are using a government service so the government can violate their rights argument" Good to see, as it applied to you too.



Private property includes the right to control access for whatever reason the owner sees fit. By doing so the owner does not violate the rights of other people and so the state has no justification to use its domain of force towards it for such actions. If you read the thread you would have noticed I mentioned an example where the actions of a property owner violates the rights of someone else, but this is not one of those cases.
Click to expand...

I keep repeating because you keep.repeating. You keep saying government can't. Well it can and has. No one cares you can't open your white only business except you and a small % of others.

Property rights are not absolute. Just ask the Native Americans, slaves and any number of others who have had their property actually infringed. Not being able to open a racist business is not actually having your property rights infringed.
 
captainawesome said:
I keep repeating because you keep.repeating. You keep saying government can't. Well it can and has. No one cares you can't open your white only business except you and a small % of others.

Property rights are not absolute. Just ask the Native Americans, slaves and any number of others who have had their property actually infringed. Not being able to open a racist business is not actually having your property rights infringed.
Click to expand...

I keep repeating myself because you aren't getting that its the root of property itself. Being able to control access to your property be it your person, your land, your home, your business, your bed, whatever, is what property is entirely rooted in. Your argument must ignore this so you can claim people being denied access to others property is somehow a wrong. That is just impossible, sorry. Because of this fact, yes, this is a right infringement by the government and you can deny it all day and run to law as your argument, but that fact will continue to hold true. Saying no to however the business owner wants is their right as it is your right with your home, your land, and your body. The property being a business does not change a thing.
 
Henrin said:
I keep repeating myself because you aren't getting that its the root of property itself. Being able to control access to your property be it your person, your land, your home, your business, your bed, whatever, is what property is entirely rooted in. Your argument must ignore this so you can claim people being denied access to others property is somehow a wrong. That is just impossible, sorry. Because of this fact, yes, this is a right infringement by the government and you can deny it all day and run to law as your argument, but that fact will continue to hold true.
Click to expand...

Being able to run a racist business is not fundamental to freedom. That is silly.
 
captainawesome said:
Being able to run a racist business is not fundamental to freedom. That is silly.
Click to expand...

Is that an argument? As I said, the reason for them not allowing people in is not important as they have the right to say no to whoever they please. The only way you can prove otherwise is to show a right violation by them doing so, and since that is impossible, all you have is "they're racist". That is meaningless to the right, sorry.
 
Henrin said:
Is that an argument? As I said, the reason for them not allowing people is not important as they have the right to say no to whoever they please. The only way you can prove otherwise is show a right violation by them doing so, and since that is impossible, all you have is "they are racist". That is meaningless to the right, sorry.
Click to expand...

What, why, how is all fundamental. One can't use your home to sell crack.

One can't bury uranium wast in your back yard. One can't open a business that discriminates. That is the law and those laws are good.
 
captainawesome said:
What, why, how is all fundamental. One can't use your home to sell crack.

One can't bury uranium wast in your back yard. One can't open a business that discriminates. That is the law and those laws are good.
Click to expand...

Oh look, a list of random examples to make a point I already admitted with my building a dam and it floods your neighbors yard example pages ago. The only one there worth talking about is the nuclear waste example as the former is just two people taking part in a transaction and the customer getting exactly what they want.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Oh look, a list of random examples to make a point I already admitted with my building a dam and it floods your neighbors yard example pages ago. The only one there worth talking about is the nuclear waste example as the former is just two people taking part in a transaction and the customer getting exactly what they want.
Click to expand...

They are against the law that is what they have in common. Going back to allowing businesses to wantonly discriminate will be bad for society. It will lead to violence just like it did then.

If the owner of the towns only drug store doesn't fill the Muslim kids antibiotic prescription and he dies that is very bad for all of us. Same if the only gas station refuses to sell to an Asian woman.

If we were to allow such behavior then chaos will result. I would personally torch a white only diner. It is just something that should no longer exist.
 
captainawesome said:
They are against the law that is what they have in common. Going back to allowing businesses to wantonly discriminate will be bad for society. It will lead to violence just like it did then.
Click to expand...

Which would be against the law. No problem at all.

If the owner of the towns only drug store doesn't fill the Muslim kids antibiotic prescription and he dies that is very bad for all of us. Same if the only gas station refuses to sell to an Asian woman.
Click to expand...

And your point? Where is the right violation in there? Being bad for one person, a group or the entire country =/= a right violation. Saying no is not inflicting violence or violating the rights of anyone even if they die without access.

If we were to allow such behavior then chaos will result. I would personally torch a white only diner. It is just something that should no longer exist.
Click to expand...

Then you would be arrested. One of the jobs of the government is respect the wishes of property owners and to protect their property against people that would burn it to the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom