Discrimination vs Rights: liberty really is simple

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
"Or they could punch the jerk in the face."

Okay. Now I know that you can't be taken seriously here.

Oh, I'm very serious. I wouldn't hesitate to do it to some jerk who decided to assault my wife (or sister, or girlfriend, etc) - if she wanted me to.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Nothin
Would you therefore, support and encourage, any ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic), to set-up a soapbox on your front-lawn, and verbally spew for hours on end, every day ?

Of course not. That would be a violation of my private property rights - and doing so in public but loud enough to be heard inside my home would be called a public nuisance, and abatable, by force if necessary.

What makes you think I 'support' such speech in the first place?

Would you therefore, support and encourage, any ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic), to speak at a general assembly in your children's school ?

Of course not. No one has a Right to speak at a 'general assembly at my childrens school.

Would you take-away their rights ?

No.

Where do these supposed 'rights' come from anyways ?

God. Nature/the act of being born human. The flying spaghetti monster. Take your pick.

If 'rights' are privileges: could they not be taken-away by those that have granted them ?

Yes. That is why it is important to understand the distinction between 'rights' (aka privileges) and 'Rights', granted to all people by virtue of their being human.

Why do your private property rights, trumps the rights of this conceptual ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic) ?
What if somebody wants to fight you to the death, over their 'rights' to free speech, now that you're the one denying it ?

Or are you only supporting free-speech, as long as it's not inconvenient to you personally ?

Folks speak at general assemblies in schools everyday, that's why.
Then you said that you wouldn't take-away their 'right' to speak at the school.

Do only believers in the Christian God: have 'God-given rights' ?
Where and what are these supposed 'God-given rights' ?
Does a steer lining-up at the abattoir have any 'God-given rights' ?

Do only humans have 'Rights' ?
What makes us so special ?

I may hate what a natzi/racist/scumbag is saying, but I'll fight to the death for their right to say it. ...

Would you therefore, support and encourage, any ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic), to set-up a soapbox on your front-lawn, and verbally spew for hours on end, every day ?

Your lawn is your private property. One person's rights end where another's begin. If you own the property, then you can decide who is allowed to be on it. Can't say anything about them on a public walkway though.

Would you therefore, support and encourage, any ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic), to speak at a general assembly in your children's school ?

It would depend on why they're talking now wouldn't it? What if they came as part of a gang intervention to talk about anti-extremism? Would you support them talking at your kid's school then ... you know, like addicts will talk as part of drug prevention programs.

Would you take-away their rights ?
Where do these supposed 'rights' come from anyways ?
If 'rights' are privileges: could they not be taken-away by those that have granted them ?

Rights and privileges are two different things. A right is something you have intrinsic to self. Your life is your own. You have it independent of others. Your speech is your own. You have it independent of others. The basic unalienable rights are all like that. You have the right to your property,etc.

Privileges are those things accorded you by society that you cannot enjoy without someone else's indulgence and providence. Public education is like this, so would public health care be. These are things you need society to give you. Actually, marriages of all types fall into this category too.

Rights you would have independent of the society of others. Privileges you lose with society.

a reply to: ketsuko

So exactly where and when, are folks fully able to engage in ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic), behavior and activities ?
In the public square ? On the inter-webs ?
On their own property ?
In their rented apartment ?
In their car ? What if their car is on private property ?


Understand what you mean by the regular definitions of 'rights' : but was asking the other poster about those supposed 'God-given' and 'natural-human' rights.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: tanstaafl

Business owner holds 100% of the risk of their decisions, therefore of course they should also hold the right to run their business however they choose, including choosing who they will and won't hire, serve, or otherwise conduct business with. If the "times they are a changin" as people believe, then businesses which unfairly discriminate against people will see their businesses harmed by those choices.

But they don't see harm when they refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, now do they? Your comments are not in keeping with people's human rights. Business owners do not own 100% of the risk of their decisions because they are seving the public. You are lacking in forward thinking...I think we need new, fresh moderators.

a reply to: tanstaafl

My answer is "yes" to all three... but I also firmly believe in the Social Contract as government's mandate to serve the best interests and needs of all the people with the consent of the people.

With a very very few exceptions (such as emergency medical care) the government should never force people to provide a service to anyone. Period.

At the same time, government should never ever force people to NOT provide a service to anyone -- such as the Jim Crow laws did.

However -- and this is where I will probably differ with you in opinion -- I do believe that those legal fictional entities called "corporations," which receive special entitlements and privileges from government, should be required to abide by the same conditions as government, and serve all people equally. If they don't want to do so, they don't have to be incorporated and get the perks of incorporation.

I also would require full disclosure in the interests of fair advertising by those small businesses that choose to discriminate. If they won't serve this, that or another group, then they should make that very clear on their storefronts, websites, any and all advertising. It is their choice, but it is the customer's choice to decide if they want to patronize such a business. If someone doesn't want to bake a cake for my brother's gay wedding, so be it... but I may not want them to bake a cake for my mother's birthday either. That's my choice.

Everyone gets a choice.... the sweet smell of freedom

The road goes both ways.

a reply to: Boadicea

If someone doesn't want to bake a cake for my brother's gay wedding, so be it... but I may not want them to bake a cake for my mother's birthday either. That's my choice.

And this is absolutely fair and what choice is all about. Not every business is for everyone, nor should it be. When we allow people to pick and choose their preferred clientele and operate they desire, it does allow them to specialize their services though, and I'm not talking about in areas of discrimination, but in areas that would be interesting and exciting.

What about the barber shops that advertise as being primarily for men like Sports Cuts (or whatever they're called)? Allowing them exclusively serve a clientele -- men. Would allow them to focus on providing just services for men making them possibly even better at it. Are you going to argue that women would lose by this given the number of salons that mostly serve women? But that would be discrimination in a business open to the public as it stands wouldn't it? Right now, I could complain if they refused me for service as discriminating based on my gender. So I bet they keep someone on who can cut women's hair ... just in case.

First - please learn how to quote if you want to engage in dialog.

originally posted by: Nothin
Why do your private property rights, trumps the rights of this conceptual ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic) ?

My private private property Rights are the same as yours - and theirs.

Do you actually not understand that no one - not some natzi racist scumbag, or Chsristian preacher, or radical fascist AntiFA nutbag - and not you, can come onto my private property - my lawn - without my permission?

What if somebody wants to fight you to the death, over their 'rights' to free speech, now that you're the one denying it ?

I am not denying them anything except the privilege to come onto my property, or to engage in some kind of verbal assault that reaches onto my private property. If they are under some kind of delusion that they have such Rights and attempt to exercise them, they will find out very quickly that they don't.

Maybe you aren't American, and have no concept of private property and the accompanying Rights that attach?

Or are you only supporting free-speech, as long as it's not inconvenient to you personally ?

What the frack are you yammering about? I already said I will support the 1st amendment Rights of even those whose views I find abhorrent. That doesn't mean I welcome them onto my private property or into my home to express them.

Folks speak at general assemblies in schools everyday, that's why.

Not without the permission of the School Administration they don't.

Then you said that you wouldn't take-away their 'right' to speak at the school.

They don't have a Right to speak at the school, just like they don't have a Right to speak inside my home or on my private property. They are free to ask permission, and I am free to decline.

Do only believers in the Christian God: have 'God-given rights' ?

Did I say that? In fact, I think I worded things to make it clear these applied to people by the very fact that they were born human.

Where and what are these supposed 'God-given rights' ?

Irrelevent.

Does a steer lining-up at the abattoir have any 'God-given rights' ?

Do only humans have 'Rights' ?

Yes. I do believe that animals should be treated with dignity and respect, and I am not opposed to laws granting them protections from extreme abuse and the like, but they do not have Rights the same as people.

What makes us so special ?

Good question. Start a thread and maybe I'll participate.

originally posted by: Boadicea
With a very very few exceptions (such as emergency medical care) the government should never force people to provide a service to anyone. Period.

I agree 100%, with respect to emergency medical care.

At the same time, government should never ever force people to NOT provide a service to anyone -- such as the Jim Crow laws did.

Bingo!!! You win (a Star)! I was wondering if anyone would bring this point up, because that was actually one of the things that caused me to start answering all three questions 'Yes' myself.

However -- and this is where I will probably differ with you in opinion -- I do believe that those legal fictional entities called "corporations," which receive special entitlements and privileges from government, should be required to abide by the same conditions as government, and serve all people equally. If they don't want to do so, they don't have to be incorporated and get the perks of incorporation.

Another excellent point that I was hoping someone would bring up.

You may be surprised to find that I actually agree with you, at least in principle.

Legal fictions are not people, and do nopt have Rights. I was appalled when the Supreme Court said otherwise, and this is a decision that really needs to be reversed. Maybe I'll go start a

One area that is in dire need of reform is the entire concept of 'Limited Liability', not just for Corporations, but all of the different types of limited liability vehicles (LLCs, LPs, Trusts, etc).

I thinks it is abhorrent that Corporations have privileges that in some ways exceed our Rights.

For one thing, officers of these kinds of vehicles should be able to be held both financially and even criminally liable in some situations (lots of room for debate on just what these situations might be though).

Exactly how and what to change with respect to laws governing legal fictions is a massive subject worthy of debate in its own thread.

I also would require full disclosure in the interests of fair advertising by those small businesses that choose to discriminate. If they won't serve this, that or another group, then they should make that very clear on their storefronts, websites, any and all advertising. It is their choice, but it is the customer's choice to decide if they want to patronize such a business.

Again, I agree, except in the case of deciding on a whim... for example, if you come into my place of business with some kind of attitude, I reserve the Right to throw your butt out, based solely on my own judgement that you are being an ass.

If someone doesn't want to bake a cake for my brother's gay wedding, so be it... but I may not want them to bake a cake for my mother's birthday either. That's my choice.

I agree again, but this would be difficult to put into a sign - I'd be fine with something like 'We reserve the Right to refuse business based on our Religious beliefs'.

Thanks for your participation and insights!

originally posted by: InTheLight
But they don't see harm when they refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, now do they?

Because there was no harm done to the gay couple.

First, the baker did not 'refuse to bake a cake'. They offered to sell them any of the cakes they had already baked and were in their display cases. You knew that, right?

What they refused to do was engage in their premium decoration service, because the gay couple wanted them to put decorations (and words) on the cake that violated their religious beliefs. You do know there was a bakery across the street that was perfectly willing to do what they wanted, right?

You want to talk about harm? This owners of this bakery were grievously harmed by this radical gay couple who intentionally targeted them because of their religious beliefs. If I were the baker, I'd have massively counter-sued them.

Your comments are not in keeping with people's human rights.

Your comments reflect a misunderstanding of what constitutes a Right.

Business owners do not own 100% of the risk of their decisions because they are seving the public.

Business owners are in business to make money.

Why do you think you have the 'right' to force them to do things they don't want to do?

a reply to: ketsuko

When we allow people to pick and choose their preferred clientele and operate they desire, it does allow them to specialize their services though, and I'm not talking about in areas of discrimination, but in areas that would be interesting and exciting.

What about the barber shops that advertise as being primarily for men like Sports Cuts (or whatever they're called)? Allowing them exclusively serve a clientele -- men....

Excellent points, Kets. Really excellent.

It's a good thing when someone masters a specialty and then offers that service to those who want/need it, knowing it's not wanted/needed by everyone. For purely business reasons, a person may decide they have more than enough business that they can handle, and limit their services...

And maybe they're just idiots who are limiting their services for all the wrong reasons -- not even necessarily racism or sexism or any of the other "isms" -- and will suffer the business consequences.

For the most part, people don't turn away business because it's bad for business. Everyone's money is the same color and spends the same. As long as government isn't in the mix demanding that anyone serve or not serve anyone, it will all work itself out.

Yes to all three.

No qualms about it.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

I agree 100%, with respect to emergency medical care.

Understood

You may be surprised to find that I actually agree with you, at least in principle.

Legal fictions are not people, and do nopt have Rights. I was appalled when the Supreme Court said otherwise, and this is a decision that really needs to be reversed.

Yes, it does. I was appalled as well. This decision violates every principle of natural law and therefore our Constitutional rights.

I thinks it is abhorrent that Corporations have privileges that in some ways exceed our Rights.

More and more, I'm thinking this is by design. Crony capitalists figured out at some point that they could give corporations the power to violate and trample rights in ways that are clearly forbidden by the Constitution. For example, government cannot censor our speech... but corporations sure can. So the critters give corporations monopolies that we call "social media" unprecedented power, allowing them to become thee ultimate medium for open discussion and debate, then allow these social media corps to control and censor our speech.

We are seeing it now with Twitter and Facebook banning accounts that name Eric Ciaramella as the Ukraine whistleblower. We see it with Twitter and Reddit banning accounts that say "trans women are NOT women" or that trans women don't belong in women's sports or women's bathrooms.

Exactly how and what to change with respect to laws governing legal fictions is a massive subject worthy of debate in its own thread.

I would love to see that thread -- both because it is a crucial discussion that must be had before we can expect anything to get better, and because I could hopefully learn and expand my thinking on the subject. I understand the larger principles more than the nitty gritty of it all.

...if you come into my place of business with some kind of attitude, I reserve the Right to throw your butt out, based solely on my own judgement that you are being an ass.... [snip]... I'd be fine with something like 'We reserve the Right to refuse business based on our Religious beliefs'.

Good points. Reserving the right not to serve designated groups must not limit the right to refuse service to random and sundry jerks, which must also be maintained.

Thanks for your participation and insights!

You're welcome -- and thank you for a great OP. I love these OPs that encourage us to think!

a reply to: tanstaafl

This is my third attempt to reply to your post. The other two appear to have vanished into the ATS ether, or whatever.

First: apologies are in order: you are right, my sloppy editing made some of your text, appear as though it was me writing it. Sorry. My mistake. Didn't check before posting, and then didn't check after posting. My bad.

Here is that specific text:

Yes. That is why it is important to understand the distinction between 'rights' (aka privileges) and 'Rights', granted to all people by virtue of their being human.

Am Canadian, and our property 'rights' may be somewhat weaker than in the USA.
Here" even if a real-estate property has been in your family for 5 generations: if you don't keep-up with the yearly taxes, eventually they will seize your property, and auction it off to the highest bidder, or pass it off to some real-estate dealer to sell.

The concept of 'land-ownership', is a pipe-dream, in that there is always someway for it to be taken-away from you.

And land, or a home purchased on a loan ? Forget about it !
BTW: that $75000 truck that you 'own', after putting a $10000 deposit on it, and getting a loan for the rest: isn't really yours either.
Stop making the monthly payments, and see how long that lasts.

So what about these: 'Rights' and 'rights', that you mentioned ?

Might you please specify what those are, in greater detail ?

And those conceptual ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic), and their 'Rights' and 'rights': where exactly are they allowed to exercise those 'Rights' and 'rights' ?
In the privy of their home ?
On the public square ?
On the internet ?

Folks are already getting arrested, in different places around the world, for 'hate crimes', because of what they say.
Are you thinking about going over to Germany, to ..."...fight to the death..."... to defend their speech, that has been judged as 'anti-Semitic', or whatever ?

What's the limits, of where you are willing to go, to: ..."...fight to the death...".. , to defend some supposed ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic) ?

'Cause there are folks being prosecuted for similar, all over this big world.

originally posted by: Boadicea
For the most part, people don't turn away business because it's bad for business. Everyone's money is the same color and spends the same. As long as government isn't in the mix demanding that anyone serve or not serve anyone, it will all work itself out.

Exactly. Capitalism can be the great equalizer, but this circles back to the point made earlier about a thread to discuss what would be the best way to revamp the entire concepts of 'Limited Liability' and 'Legal Fictions' (aka Corporations, LLCs, etc).

I've already started working on one, but no telling how long before it will be ready, so if anyone else has the time/inclination...

originally posted by: Nothin
First: apologies are in order: you are right, my sloppy editing made some of your text, appear as though it was me writing it. Sorry. My mistake. Didn't check before posting, and then didn't check after posting. My bad.

No worries mate...

"Yes. That is why it is important to understand the distinction between 'rights' (aka privileges) and 'Rights', granted to all people by virtue of their being human."

Am Canadian, and our property 'rights' may be somewhat weaker than in the USA.

Here" even if a real-estate property has been in your family for 5 generations: if you don't keep-up with the yearly taxes, eventually they will seize your property, and auction it off to the highest bidder, or pass it off to some real-estate dealer to sell.

That is the case here too now, although it wasn't in the beginning. Here in America, it is still possible to find property that is held in allodium (Allodial Title). This means it has been removed from the property tax rolls. It exists, but as I said, it is very rare.

The concept of 'land-ownership', is a pipe-dream, in that there is always someway for it to be taken-away from you.

For feudal type land 'ownership' systems, like the 'fee simple' system mostly used in America today, you are correct.

And land, or a home purchased on a loan ? Forget about it !

Not sure what you mean here. We own three properties (ours, and two rentals). All originally had loans/mortgages, but two are now paid off, and ours is almost paid off.

BTW: that $75000 truck that you 'own', after putting a $10000 deposit on it, and getting a loan for the rest: isn't really yours either.

I don't buy cars on loans... that is stupid, unless you are independently wealthy and have the money to burn, then it is just dumb.

Stop making the monthly payments, and see how long that lasts.

Yeah, well, since you only have a partial ownership interest in it, and don't own it fully/outright, what would you expect?

So what about these: 'Rights' and 'rights', that you mentioned ?

Might you please specify what those are, in greater detail ?

That is a pretty big subject right there, and one that I am actually working on a thread for right now, but the short version is:

A Right is something universal - that all people enjoy, acquired naturally, by simple virtue of being born human. Some people say they come from God, but it is not necessary to believe in God to understand and believe in the concept of natural Rights.

America is the very first country that I'm aware of that almost fully respected these natural Rights.

The primary examples are those outlined in the preamble to our great Constitution - the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. I call them primary, because encompassed within them are a myriad of other derivative Rights - for example, the Right to engage in lawful activities (activities that cause no harm to others) to support and maintain your Right to Life.

I'll have to leave it there for now...

And those conceptual ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic), and their 'Rights' and 'rights': where exactly are they allowed to exercise those 'Rights' and 'rights' ?
In the privy of their home ?
On the public square ?
On the internet ?

Yes to all of the above.

Basically, they are free to exercise it everywhere you and I are free to do so.

What no one has the Right to do is force others to listen to them.

Folks are already getting arrested, in different places around the world, for 'hate crimes', because of what they say.

I know. It is appalling. Those people should fight back against such absurdities.

Are you thinking about going over to Germany, to ..."...fight to the death..."... to defend their speech, that has been judged as 'anti-Semitic', or whatever ?

Of course not. I'm American. I'll fight my fight here in my own country.

What's the limits, of where you are willing to go, to: ..."...fight to the death...".. , to defend some supposed ..."...natzi/racist/scumbag..."... (sic) ?

Do I have to say it? Ok...

It depends.

'Cause there are folks being prosecuted for similar, all over this big world.

Yes, but I am not a citizen of the world, I'm an American.

a reply to: Boadicea

OK. I know it's taking me some time to get around to things again, but I've been consumed with Planet Zoo and my animals.

Let's examine this from another angle, an SJW type angle.

Look at the current demand for so-called safe spaces, often a demand they be set up in public places like university commons and the like. They are places where certain groups are expected to be able to go and only have to be in the company of others of "their kind" without feeling the so-called social anxieties of having to mix with "oppressor classes".

Wouldn't the private market be a better place to provide these safe spaces in the form of businesses designed to cater to these intersectional groups exclusively? We have gay bars now, but they have to serve the public. Why not allow them to only serve their preferred clientele and create that so-called safe space?

If a business is too discriminating in its focus, the market will decide. There simply won't be enough patronage for it or the patronage it does get will be the wrong sort to attract a viable customer base, say the all white establishment that attracts white supremacists instead of just regular folks.

But if society really has a hunger to start segregating itself in order to not have to deal with "the other", then it's not the business of publicly funded institutions to provide that. It would seem to me to be a private market place. Why should my tax dollars pay to provide safe spaces that my son could never use? But if a private entrepreneur is given the freedom to take advantage of that hunger for this or that group only spaces in the form of a business or club, than why shouldn't we allow it?

I think I need to know the real underlying reason/question of why you asked this (these) questions.

This kind of questioning is like a trap.

originally posted by: Annee
I think I need to know the real underlying reason/question of why you asked this (these) questions.

This kind of questioning is like a trap.

Is it, or is it only that you like the idea of liberty and rights ... but only so long as everyone else uses them to do things of which you approve?

a reply to: tanstaafl

In a purely philosophical state this conversation can take place. In the real world those things are already the choice of the employer more often than not.

For the first question all a business needs is a sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time".

For the second question hiring is almost always the choice of the business. Only in the rarest circumstances will a business be forced to hire outside of their preference or choice and even then it will most likely be limited to someone from a select group, not an individual. As for firing, any business has a variety of ways to eliminate any employee they see fit and there is little that can be done about it. the exception of course is unions where it is often extremely difficult to fire someone regardless of how poorly they perform.

For the third question that is pretty much the case now. Especially when the business owns the property.