Libertarianism and Civil Rights

[PirateMk1]

LMAO I have too

BUT

are are factually wron wrong LOL

you can accept this fact or deny it, doesnt change anything, facts are funny that way, they dont change based on ones opinion

No you are not on this thread for the purposes you stated. You are here to troll. I will no longer assist as I apparently have been. I will not assist dishonesty. Good day sir.

 

[AGENT J]

No you are not on this thread for the purposes you stated. You are here to troll. I will no longer assist as I apparently have been. I will not assist dishonesty. Good day sir.

well have now you lied (twice troll and dishonesty comments) or are you are unaware that your opinion is factually 100% wrong LOL

pick one :shrug:

 

[ecofarm]

I just don't see it. I don't see a distinction between religion and business. What's the difference between a church and a business besides ideology? So why let a religion discriminate when a business can't?

Both can discriminate, but not on the basis of the color of ones skin. Are you under the impression that religion is not regulated? Your second sentence implies such a faulty belief.

 

[maquiscat]

I see now you simply dont understand or care about written rights and laws and freedoms you are just going off your own opinion of them. See thats not my fault, im not talking about fantasy land im talking about reality and if you denied her employment soley based on the fact she was white, christian or female you directly violated her rights, I dont know what to tell you if you dont understand this fact has I have already explained and told you where you can verify this info.

If we were living in 1812 instead of 2012 and we were arguing that all men regardless of skin color have the right to be free, would you be telling us that we simply don't understand or care about written rights and laws and freedoms? It is no different here and now. As it was legal for slavery back then even as others were stating that it was a violation of the black man's rights, so now we are saying that yes it is the law to not allow a person to do with their private business as they wish, but that is a violation of the business owner's rights. As those who were looking to restore (or establish depending on your view) the black man's rights, so we are looking to restore the business owner's rights.

Can you provide an example of an instance in which free enterprise fixed a problem "on its own?"

There was a tax on airlines that expired. Basically this meant that all the airlines had extra profit. Then one airline lowered it's prices, trying to undercut the others. Soon the rest followed and the prices lowered until the extra profit was pretty much gone. Later the tax was reinstated and the prices went back to where they were. This was referenced in Neal Boortz's Fair Tax book. My copy is currently packed away. If anyone else has access to it, some dates would be helpful.

Nash and Ford had safety belts on their cars before any law was made requiring all cars to have them. With only a decade at most between the first voluntarily offered seat belt and the law, we will never know if the market would have forced the other manufacturers to include belts in order to maintain their market share or not. Air bags were offered on cars as early as mid 1970's but weren't required until 1984 (with the first roll out to be in 1989). Again with less than a decade, we won't know whether the market forces would have worked or not.

I agree with you that companies, large ones that is, don't care about the average joe. What they do care about is the average joe's dollar. If too many people leave for something better then they will do that better move to keep market share. If someone comes up with something better then people will move towards that. But that change is admittedly slow. So the question comes down to do you want to curtail freedoms to brings these changes faster? Some people feel it is worth it, others do not.

No you are not on this thread for the purposes you stated. You are here to troll. I will no longer assist as I apparently have been. I will not assist dishonesty. Good day sir.

Dude don't go the way of Guy. I've been here long enough to know that OJ can be obtuse and annoying, but trolling....no. While I don't agree with what he says and how, he is not trolling.

well have now you lied (twice troll and dishonesty comments) or are you are unaware that your opinion is factually 100% wrong LOL

pick one :shrug:

Opinions can never be wrong. That's why they are opinions.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Both can discriminate, but not on the basis of the color of ones skin. Are you under the impression that religion is not regulated? Your second sentence implies such a faulty belief.

It sounds like you're saying religious groups should not be permitted to discriminate either. But that's part of separation of church and state. What about religions that disallow certain races?

 

[AGENT J]

If we were living in 1812 instead of 2012 and we were arguing that all men regardless of skin color have the right to be free, would you be telling us that we simply don't understand or care about written rights and laws and freedoms? It is no different here and now. As it was legal for slavery back then even as others were stating that it was a violation of the black man's rights, so now we are saying that yes it is the law to not allow a person to do with their private business as they wish, but that is a violation of the business owner's rights. As those who were looking to restore (or establish depending on your view) the black man's rights, so we are looking to restore the business owner's rights.

well it would simply depend on my mind set? if my mind set was equal to today id still not be in favor of not discriminating,
I understand what you are saying but he wants laws that allow discrimination.

the bottom line is I need LOGIC to accept that peoples rights should be infringed on and IMO none was provided

Opinions can never be wrong. That's why they are opinions.

this is 100% wrong

a TRUE opinion can never be wrong, true meaning definition wise not true/false,

but if you have an opinion that 2 + 2 = 5, your opinion is factually wrong :shrug:

 

[ecofarm]

It sounds like you're saying religious groups should not be permitted to discriminate either.

Correct. And religious groups are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. Proving such would remove their license stuff.

 

[PirateMk1]

If we were living in 1812 instead of 2012 and we were arguing that all men regardless of skin color have the right to be free, would you be telling us that we simply don't understand or care about written rights and laws and freedoms? It is no different here and now. As it was legal for slavery back then even as others were stating that it was a violation of the black man's rights, so now we are saying that yes it is the law to not allow a person to do with their private business as they wish, but that is a violation of the business owner's rights. As those who were looking to restore (or establish depending on your view) the black man's rights, so we are looking to restore the business owner's rights.



There was a tax on airlines that expired. Basically this meant that all the airlines had extra profit. Then one airline lowered it's prices, trying to undercut the others. Soon the rest followed and the prices lowered until the extra profit was pretty much gone. Later the tax was reinstated and the prices went back to where they were. This was referenced in Neal Boortz's Fair Tax book. My copy is currently packed away. If anyone else has access to it, some dates would be helpful.

Nash and Ford had safety belts on their cars before any law was made requiring all cars to have them. With only a decade at most between the first voluntarily offered seat belt and the law, we will never know if the market would have forced the other manufacturers to include belts in order to maintain their market share or not. Air bags were offered on cars as early as mid 1970's but weren't required until 1984 (with the first roll out to be in 1989). Again with less than a decade, we won't know whether the market forces would have worked or not.

I agree with you that companies, large ones that is, don't care about the average joe. What they do care about is the average joe's dollar. If too many people leave for something better then they will do that better move to keep market share. If someone comes up with something better then people will move towards that. But that change is admittedly slow. So the question comes down to do you want to curtail freedoms to brings these changes faster? Some people feel it is worth it, others do not.



Dude don't go the way of Guy. I've been here long enough to know that OJ can be obtuse and annoying, but trolling....no. While I don't agree with what he says and how, he is not trolling.



Opinions can never be wrong. That's why they are opinions.

Its the obtuse part that singles to me that perhaps he is not this thread for the purpose he stated. I can deal with annoying. I wont deal with disingeniuousness. I gave him a fair shake. He didnt take it. If he answers the questions I asked previously in the direct manner I answered his then perhaps I will reevaluate my position, until then I consider him a troll. I know he can be quite direct when he feels the need to. His choice to be obtuse, its mine not whether or not interact with him. I choose not to at this time.

 

[maquiscat]

this is 100% wrong
a TRUE opinion can never be wrong, true meaning definition wise not true/false,
but if you have an opinion that 2 + 2 = 5, your opinion is factually wrong :shrug:

Only if it's on a statement that can be verified true. Now correct me if I am wrong. I believe that you are stating that his opinion of you being here to troll is what you are saying is a false opinion. Correct? (see this is the part I hate of not having face to face debates. I would normally have you confirm or deny at this point) The problem is that the only one who can verify the validity of that is you. You can't prove it to be true, you can only claim it. It is still his opinion of what your intentions are. Now he may like to believe that he is stating fact but since he can't truly gain access to your mind to know it is opinion. But I can see things from your side as well. I guess it comes down to semantic and POV.

 

[AGENT J]

Only if it's on a statement that can be verified true. Now correct me if I am wrong. I believe that you are stating that his opinion of you being here to troll is what you are saying is a false opinion. Correct? (see this is the part I hate of not having face to face debates. I would normally have you confirm or deny at this point) The problem is that the only one who can verify the validity of that is you. You can't prove it to be true, you can only claim it. It is still his opinion of what your intentions are. Now he may like to believe that he is stating fact but since he can't truly gain access to your mind to know it is opinion. But I can see things from your side as well. I guess it comes down to semantic and POV.

I see what you are saying but he was definitely factually wrong.

if you read his back and fourth it was basically like me asking you what religion you are, you say religion A and i laugh and say nope you are religion B because I say so adn I dont believe you.

yes I do have an opinion that you are religion B but obviously that would be a wrong one

and in my case I would never be uneducated enough to think my opinion was fact on such a matter

 

[Guy Incognito]

Correct. And religious groups are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. Proving such would remove their license stuff.

That's a weird system you're envisioning. Licensing churches? For what purpose?

 

[ecofarm]

That's a weird system you're envisioning. Licensing churches? For what purpose?

Churches must register or something to avoid taxes and blahblah. That's "license stuff". You know, government red tape. And one of the things that churches must aree to, just like business, is no racial discrimination. How does this point escape you?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Churches must register or something to avoid taxes. That's "license stuff". You know, government red tape. and one of the things that churches must aree to, just like business, is no racial discrimination. How does this point escape you?

In an ideal world we wouldn't be giving special perks to religious groups at all. So all churches would be in the same position as the ones that discriminate. I don't like the idea of using government coercion as either a carrot or a stick for social engineering. It's just not the role of government, it's tyranny.

 

[ecofarm]

In an ideal world

I thought we were discussing racial discrimination and reasonable government actions regarding it, all rights considered.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I thought we were discussing racial discrimination and reasonable government actions regarding it, all rights considered.

Well, yeah, from a libertarian perspective. You're kind of making a witches brew of different ideologies.

 

[ecofarm]

Well, yeah, from a libertarian perspective. You're kind of making a witches brew of different ideologies.

I think I've explained things consistently and regardless of particular lean or derivation of rights. My 'rights conflict analysis' knows no bias.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I think I've explained things consistently and regardless of particular lean or derivation of rights. My 'rights conflict analysis' knows no bias.

I don't think I really get where you're coming from, though. What is this derivation of rights you're talking about (or you mean you don't care about that?) and more importantly what is the principle permitting government exercise of authority?

I get it that the idea is "whatever works" but the problem with that is what is the ultimate goal? It's what I've been calling social engineering, and the reason it's problematic is in determining the goal of the social engineering. Who's values carry the day?

Why, for instance, would we punish otherwise good and honest Rastafarians who (some branches of the religion, anyway) will not allow white people for reasons of conscience. If we're engaging in social engineering, I guess we need to make a decision between which value prevails in this conflict, the value of allow free exercise of religion and the value of cultivating racial tolerance. We can't have both.

That's why derivation of rights is an important thing to discuss. Incidentally, libertarianism offers a way out of this cluster**** of ad hoc political theory by providing an elegant theory where all rights and all powers of government flow logically from a single source.

 

[BayToBay]

I was involved in a discussion recently where th rights of businesses to exclude employees and others was brought into dispute. The Libertarian view is very much in favor of the rights of a private business owner to conduct their business as they see fit. It think it is pretty well settled that the right of a private business owner to discriminate follows logically from the libertarian principle of noncoercion.

This becomes a little ugly, however, when the rubber meets the road, since libertarianism conflicts with some of the landmark civil rights legislation of the modern era. I think there are some very good, principled grounds for supporting such anti discriminatory laws. First and foremost, even though these laws conflict wih libertarian principles, they serve to correct far greater violations of libertarian principles that occurred in the past.

I would like to hear from my fellow libertarians (or anyone else who has a good faith opinion on how to apply libertarian principles wihin a libertarian perspective) what they think of this important issue.

We have made a lot of progress on civil rights in this country; much of it was due to legislation which I dinged on the rights of business owners. Is it still relevant? Was it sever morally permissible? If so, Should businesses ever be permitted to discriminate?

Please note that this topic is carefully circumscribed around the libertarian perspective, so any response should be discussing the proper application of libertarian values, not questioning the validity of libertarian values.
with that important caveat in mind, I look forward to hearing everybody's thoughts.

I agree, my friend. Enforcement of this so called right places to great a burden on the state to enforce. Which hotel should a police officer make Obama stay at? When the private bouncers go over the line who sorts out the mess?

It is unworkable. If you open your doors to customers they must remain open to all.

However, minorities should retain some rights to exclude others when they are swamped by the larger culture. For instance, beauty contests in America would be dominated by caucasian ideas of beauty. No Italian Miss America, Irish Miss America, Black Miss America, Asian Miss America, etc... Sure you might get some black girl that has many white traits. But every little girl has beauty and should be cherished by all.

Another example is gender. The LPGA could not exist without barriers to entrants.

The white male majority needs to lighten up and let the others have a chance. Nobody is denying them an opportunity. That idea is rather absurd.

One size fits all laws don't work well. That is why liberatarians support some use of fij, tort and the self correcting system of case law.

 

[BayToBay]

I have never been interested in libertarianism. I suspect there are overlaps with conservatism.

My view is that we create governments to do specific things, as described in our Constitution. Those things governments must do and do well. Anything not written in the Constitution specifically should be carefully viewed. For example, some of the leftists would argue that having an air force is extra-constitutional. I believe they have a point, but only just barely. As technology changes the right to defense is not denied. It is one of the few essential government requirements.

We are not supposed to even have a large standing army. The founders understood what Eisenhower warned us about and felt the militias (not the crazies)would suffice. However, the Air Force was born out of the navy. The founders insisted on a standing navy. The reason is obvious, you can't build ships overnight. Privateers can be put to use but what do they when they are done (turn to piracy).

The Air Force is extra constitutional. Let's draft an amendment and fix that.