[Jayhawkk]

the 12th person thing is just so it takes any prejudice out of the equation and makes it completely random. Just like on traffic blocks...Although it can still be abused it is less likely to be.

[Clubberlang]

Originally Posted by CDB

That is the modern interpretation of rights and it's incorrect. The 'right' to use someone else's property against their wishes is not a right at all, it is empowerment. You have agreed a right is a restraint on government action.

That is only one type of right. You're talking about negative freedom. ie) Freedom From. I beleive in positive liberty ie) Freedom to.

Forcing someone to serve food to someone who, for whatever reason, they don't want to serve requires a positive action on the part of the government to abridge that person's property rights to empower another to eat there. Same for any other product or service, apartments, loans, whatever. You nor I nor anyone else has the 'right' to use anyone else's property on any other terms, if any, than what they set out and we can mutually agree to. Anything else is not rights it is enforced empowerment. Now as I said courts disagree these days. They are wrong.

I completely disagree. I beleive in positive liberty ie) freedom to, not just freedom from. You're basically arguing in favour of a buisnesses "right" to deny service on the grounds of race/religion or to chose not to hire someone because of their skin colour ect. You're sounding like a libertoid. The basic groundwork of a liberal democratic, capitalist society requires that individuals are judged on their merits. My opinion: if you don't want to play by this set of rules that treats people fairly don't play at all. Don't own a buisness if you are going to racially discriminate in hiring. Don't put your apartment up for rent if you can't follow the basic rules of the market. That's your freedom. That's your choice. Once you own a buisness, and offer your good service, you can't discriminate. That's an incroachment on my liberty.


And simply because the enforcement of this right requires "positive" government action doesn't make it any less important. We all have a right to life. If a homocidal maniac was to say...break into my house and stab me to death, the government would have a positive obligation to enforce my right to life, by arresting and charging my murderer. The same applies to the type of equality I described above. If a buisness posts a "no darkies allowed" sign, they should be forced to take it down and let me in.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by Jayhawkk

the 12th person thing is just so it takes any prejudice out of the equation and makes it completely random. Just like on traffic blocks...Although it can still be abused it is less likely to be.

Oh I know the reason, it just makes no sense to me. Especially at traffic stops. I would rather trust cops to pull over reckless drivers than stop every nth driver and hope for a score. And the ones who do abuse it, punish them. Making other cops do something stupid but politically correct as a means of dealing bad apples, no matter how many, seems counter productive.

Originally Posted by Clubberlang

That is only one type of right. You're talking about negative freedom. ie) Freedom From. I beleive in positive liberty ie) Freedom to.

That is indeed the supposed dicotomy, but once more it is not a dicotomy. Positive liberty is empowerment, not rights, and often requires the violation of the negative rights of others to enforce. The enforcement or exercise of one right can't come at the expense of the enforcement or exercise of another. If it does then you're not enforcing or exercising rights, you're exercising and enforcing empowerment.

I completely disagree. I beleive in positive liberty ie) freedom to, not just freedom from. You're basically arguing in favour of a buisnesses "right" to deny service on the grounds of race/religion or to chose not to hire someone because of their skin colour ect. You're sounding like a libertoid. The basic groundwork of a liberal democratic, capitalist society requires that individuals are judged on their merits.

Judging people on their merits has absolutely diddly squat to do with capitalism, liberal democracy or much of anything else. Capitalism is about private property and free exchange, which includes the right to deny entry to or use of property for any reason or to not exchange for any reason. Because anything else is empowering someone else to violate the property rights of another.

My opinion: if you don't want to play by this set of rules that treats people fairly don't play at all.

Fair is a subjective evaluation. I do not care about fair, nor should the government enforce fair. Some people think it's fair that they live in a trailer and suck down welfare checks in the form of deep fried oreos paid for in part by the sweat off my brow. **** fair. Fair has nothing to do with rights, rights are about just claims. A just claim to eat out does not mean a just claim to eat out at a specific restaurant if the owner doesn't want you there. Positive liberty is not liberty or rights, it is once more empowerment which necessarily has to come at the expense of the rights of others.

Don't own a buisness if you are going to racially discriminate in hiring. Don't put your apartment up for rent if you can't follow the basic rules of the market.

So if people don't agree with you they should starve? Or have th use of their property limited or expanded beyond the bounds they want to set? Perhaps you could answer this question: by what right do you presume to tell people how to behave beyond anything that affects you negatively? A denial of service does not affect you negatively, you're no worse off than you were before the denial. You might not like the fact that some people are racists, but it is their right to be so if they so choose. And it is their right to deny entry to their property to blacks, whites, asians, people who play checkers or who ever.

That's your freedom. That's your choice. Once you own a buisness, and offer your good service, you can't discriminate. That's an incroachment on my liberty.

No, it isn't. Forcing some to do business with you is an encroachment on their rights and freedom. How about their right to freedom of association? Why do their rights get trumped to empower you? Because you say so? Because 9 whores in black robes in DC say so? Need a little more than that to go on when defining a right. No justification of positive liberty has ever been able to answer the rights/empowerment dicotomy, nor has it explained why, even if one accepts the idea of positive liberty, why the positive liberty of some trumps the negative liberty of others.

Not to mention, taken to it's logical conclusion positive liberty means you have a right to anything and everything you want. Afterall if you have the 'right' to eat eggs at a specific restaurant and they're out of stock when you show up, well then why not take them to court over it? Haven't they violated your positive rights? There are no definable parameters as to where positive liberty stops as it's based on subjective evaluations of "fair," "reasonable" and the like. Negative liberty is well defined, logically defensible, imposes no costs on anyone and does not extend to and through the subjective stratosphere of "fair" and "reasonable."

[BioHazzard]

Originally Posted by Clubberlang

If so, then this entire thread is guilty of farting in the wind too.

For the most part, yes it is. I didn't bother to read in detail, but it seems the usual waxing rhetorical nonsense in high gear.

After all the waxing and huffing, at the end of the much ado about nothing, people would either follow the rules or you don't fly. The law of the land rules. You don't have to agree with it nor do you have to like it. You are ONLY required to abide by the law of land.

They allready profile in the US. Happens all the time with the the no fly lists and wiretapping. Everybody else just gets screwed over and inconvenienced at the airport "pour out your liquids and take your shoes off" so some high school drop out earning $8.50 an hour can inspect you. Does anyone here honestly beleive that middle eastern travelers do not face any extra scrutiny when flying to the US? People have been discriminating against folks on the grounds of religion/ethnicity for hundreds of years in America. They don't need government permission to magically turn on the profiling button.

It ain't discrimination, dude. If you want to complain about the inconvenience, you should place your blame on the real culprit, the terrorists.

[Clubberlang]

That is indeed the supposed dicotomy, but once more it is not a dicotomy. Positive liberty is empowerment, not rights, and often requires the violation of the negative rights of others to enforce. The enforcement or exercise of one right can't come at the expense of the enforcement or exercise of another. If it does then you're not enforcing or exercising rights, you're exercising and enforcing empowerment.

The same applies to the type of discrimination we've been talking about. You have the right to own a buisness. I have the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race. If said buisness discriminates on these grounds, then they trample my rights in excercising their rights.

THe thing is you have this view of rights/freedom that sees the state as the greatest threat to individual liberty. It is outdated. Private citizens and Buisness are an equally large threat. The function of the state is to uphold/protect my liberty. There is no liberty without the state. That would be anarcy.

Judging people on their merits has absolutely diddly squat to do with capitalism, liberal democracy or much of anything else. Capitalism is about private property and free exchange, which includes the right to deny entry to or use of property for any reason or to not exchange for any reason. Because anything else is empowering someone else to violate the property rights of another.



Fair is a subjective evaluation. I do not care about fair, nor should the government enforce fair. Some people think it's fair that they live in a trailer and suck down welfare checks in the form of deep fried oreos paid for in part by the sweat off my brow. **** fair. Fair has nothing to do with rights, rights are about just claims. A just claim to eat out does not mean a just claim to eat out at a specific restaurant if the owner doesn't want you there. Positive liberty is not liberty or rights, it is once more empowerment which necessarily has to come at the expense of the rights of others.

Uhmm I'd say that fair is NOT a subjective evaluation. If it were, then the same standard of justice you are laying out is equally subjective, and this entire discussion is circular. If justice were subjective there'd be no courts ect. Human beings are thinking animals. While we aren't perfect, deciding that "fairness" lies outside of our ability to understand/acheive is a terribly myopic view.

So if people don't agree with you they should starve? Or have th use of their property limited or expanded beyond the bounds they want to set? Perhaps you could answer this question: by what right do you presume to tell people how to behave beyond anything that affects you negatively? A denial of service does not affect you negatively, you're no worse off than you were before the denial.

Mkay.. take a look at a couple of centuries of Jim Crow in the south. I'd say a few million people were "worse off" because the government allowed citizens the "freedom" to discriminate If private individuals are given free reign to discriminate then it endangers the rights of others to enjoy the same standards of life and liberty for no legitimate reason.

You might not like the fact that some people are racists, but it is their right to be so if they so choose. And it is their right to deny entry to their property to blacks, whites, asians, people who play checkers or who ever.

You simply have this wrong. People still have the right to be racist today. You can beleive whatever the hell you want about x race. Hell, you can deny entry or employment to people who play checkers, smell like crap, pick their nose ect. because those are all CHOICES. Because no one choses their skin colour they should not be penalized for it.

No, it isn't. Forcing some to do business with you is an encroachment on their rights and freedom. How about their right to freedom of association? Why do their rights get trumped to empower you? Because you say so? Because 9 whores in black robes in DC say so? Need a little more than that to go on when defining a right. No justification of positive liberty has ever been able to answer the rights/empowerment dicotomy, nor has it explained why, even if one accepts the idea of positive liberty, why the positive liberty of some trumps the negative liberty of others.

See my argument about the role of the state in prosecuting murderers. Under your logic, the very presence of the police to defend a citizens right to safety and security is a form of "empowerment" used to pursuit positive liberty. This is somehow OK?, yet others are not? In fact, it's a prime example of why the presence of the state is a necessarry precondition for any type of liberty.

Not to mention, taken to it's logical conclusion positive liberty means you have a right to anything and everything you want. Afterall if you have the 'right' to eat eggs at a specific restaurant and they're out of stock when you show up, well then why not take them to court over it? Haven't they violated your positive rights? There are no definable parameters as to where positive liberty stops as it's based on subjective evaluations of "fair," "reasonable" and the like. Negative liberty is well defined, logically defensible, imposes no costs on anyone and does not extend to and through the subjective stratosphere of "fair" and "reasonable."

Your arguing in a vacuum. Negative libery imposes no costs on anyone? By that argument, we abandon things like child labour laws and every standard of freedom from discrimination(race, gender sexual orientation). Under this system, power justifies power. It's bad. LIke it or not the state is a mechanism for generating order. Less state intervention does not equal more freedom.

Here's a question, you seem to beleive that the state should not be allowed to practice discrimination. Why are private citizsens any different.

But I do completely understand your POV. I just think it's hella wrong. People far smarter than you or I have argued this stuff to death. We aren't going to find an answer here....

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Clubberlang

because those are all CHOICES. Because no one choses their skin colour they should not be penalized for it.
....

People choose their religion though.

Here's the thing. The constitution gives you the right to practice your religion and forbids anyone to interfere with the practice of that religion ... to a degree.

It does NOT however say that no one is allowed to discriminate based on religion in a private enterprise so long as their discrimination does not interfere with the other person's ability to practice that religion.

Flying has nothing to do with practicing a religion. Ergo, demanding someone be searched before boarding a flight does not hinder their ability to practice their religion. Thus it is LEGAL to search people based on religious affiliation.


Now. Since people don't always wear their religion on their sleeve, and it is in fact the airline's protected right to discriminate based on religion, it is ok for an airline to narrow their search to Midle Easterners. Why? Because it is a simple FACT that the VAST majority of Middle Easterners are Muslim. Though they pulled the person aside because they are Middle Eastern, they aren't targetting them because they are Middle Eastern directly but in fact because the think the person is Muslim.


And you know what? When the airlines aren't impeded, and they start searching Middle Eastern Muslims ... ALL Middle Eastern Muslims, then maybe, just maybe enough Middle Eastern Muslims who are peaceful will get pissed off enough at the extremists they may just start ACTING out against them instead of sitting quiet.

[BioHazzard]

...Because no one choses their skin colour .....

So, what's the tanning salon for?

[BioHazzard]

This bellyaching about discrimination based on skin color and religion totally misses the whole point.

No one is barred from flying NOR being seggregated in flight, based on their race or religion. That is a fact.

So, what discrimination to speak of anyway?

As for profiling, get some common sense guys. If the APB announced that a 200lb Hispanic male is a suspect in the liquour store robbery, then it made no sense whatsoever not to focus your attention on a chubby HISPANIC MALE. There is no racial, size or sexist profiling here. It is freaking simple common sense. If you set up a road block, then you are not going to search a car full of 90lb 80 yr old White Grandmas. You pay attention to a car driven by a fat Hispanic male! IF you call that discrimination, then .......

If the majority, if not all, of the terrorists are of a certain faith, of a certain age group, and of a certain ethnic decent, then focusing your investigation, inspection and monitoring, on passengers that fit this profile, is simply common sense. It isn't discrimination, unless all passengers of that profile are categorically barred from flying or seggregated for flying.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by Clubberlang

The same applies to the type of discrimination we've been talking about. You have the right to own a buisness. I have the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race. If said buisness discriminates on these grounds, then they trample my rights in excercising their rights.

You do not have a right to freedom from discrimination on the part of a private party, only from the government.

THe thing is you have this view of rights/freedom that sees the state as the greatest threat to individual liberty. It is outdated. Private citizens and Buisness are an equally large threat. The function of the state is to uphold/protect my liberty. There is no liberty without the state. That would be anarcy.

Private businesses by definition cannot be a threat to liberty, only the state can. Your association with any private entity is voluntary as is their association with you. Therefore they cannot restrict your liberty. Only organizations which use force to compel people to do things against their will can do that, organizations like the state and the mafia, gangs, etc.

Uhmm I'd say that fair is NOT a subjective evaluation. If it were, then the same standard of justice you are laying out is equally subjective, and this entire discussion is circular.

If you start from the premise that each person owns themselves it is not circular. Fair is subjective. If not, please let me know the objective definition of fair. Negative liberty is entirely derived from an application of basic property rights. For a good summary of that I'd suggest John Stewart Mill and specific passages of Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty.

Mkay.. take a look at a couple of centuries of Jim Crow in the south. I'd say a few million people were "worse off" because the government allowed citizens the "freedom" to discriminate

Since Jim Crow came into being after the Civil War it'd be pretty hard to have a couple of centuries worth of it. That being the case you are also seriously misinformed about its nature. Jim Crow encompassed state laws which required segregation. That some people would like to segregate on their own wouldn't be in doubt. However there are pretty harsh economic consequences for doing so and such situations are only maintainable on a large scale with government support. You're looking at state sponsored and support racism and blaming it on private businesses.

However people in the end were still not worse off. Once more, if a person is in need of something and they are denied service for any reason they are no worse off than they were before. If a person is in need of something and someone agrees to provide service under certain conditions, whether or not you or I agree with them as moral or ethical, the person receiving the service is better off by definition. Rights can not trump each other like you suggest, and within the framework of negative liberty as derrived form property rights they do not interfere with each other, because in that framework rights are not confused with empowerment.

If private individuals are given free reign to discriminate then it endangers the rights of others to enjoy the same standards of life and liberty for no legitimate reason.

If private individuals are given free reign and engage in such discrimination without state support they generally lose fairly quickly. An employer who refuses to hire blacks denies himself their productivity. A business that refuses to serve whites loses the potential profit from each one of those sales. And in each instance there will always be someone willing to capitalize on that lost MRP or profit respectively by hiring and/or serving those people respectively. Unless of course the state outlaws such actions, in which case the discrimination will go on indefinitely.

See my argument about the role of the state in prosecuting murderers. Under your logic, the very presence of the police to defend a citizens right to safety and security is a form of "empowerment" used to pursuit positive liberty. This is somehow OK?, yet others are not? In fact, it's a prime example of why the presence of the state is a necessarry precondition for any type of liberty.

You are very mixed up on this subject and all I can suggest is that you do some more reading on it. The police are not empowering anyone, they are preventing and/or catching those who commit violent acts against others. That you can't see the difference between someone murdering someone and someone not allowing someone into their restaurant is a bit disturbing.

Your arguing in a vacuum. Negative libery imposes no costs on anyone? By that argument, we abandon things like child labour laws and every standard of freedom from discrimination(race, gender sexual orientation). Under this system, power justifies power. It's bad. LIke it or not the state is a mechanism for generating order. Less state intervention does not equal more freedom.

Less state intervention by definition means more freedom. Please explain how negative liberty imposes a cost on someone.

Here's a question, you seem to beleive that the state should not be allowed to practice discrimination. Why are private citizsens any different.

Actually you need to reread my posts then. It seems to me you're the one who can't tell the state from private citizens/orgs.

[Clubberlang]

dude, our disagreement doesn't stem from a "lack of knowledge" on my part or a need to read more. If you are, I suggest reading some T H Greene or Hegel. We're basically at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to this thing and we're not gonna agree.

That you can't see the between someone murdering someone and someone not allowing someone into their restaurant is a bit disturbing.

you're missing the point and being silly here. They ARE different because well... they are two different things. But if we take someone's right to life as sancrosanct, we have to give power to the state to help secure this right. Otherwise my I am left to defend my "right to life" on my own. This is the same type of "empowerment" that you seem to think voids positive rights. If you don't think freedom from discrimination is a right to be defended by the government then simply state such. Arguing that it is invalid because it requires government "empowerment" is hella weak. It overlooks the very reason that government exists.

If private individuals are given free reign and engage in such discrimination without state support they generally lose fairly quickly. An employer who refuses to hire blacks denies himself their productivity. A business that refuses to serve whites loses the potential profit from each one of those sales. And in each instance there will always be someone willing to capitalize on that lost MRP or profit respectively by hiring and/or serving those people respectively. Unless of course the state outlaws such actions, in which case the discrimination will go on indefinitely.

There are several examples in which the pursuit of profits, and blatant racism are not antithetical. It can be "good buisness" to be racist. You're making "free enterprise" a primary good and putting all else second. That's backasswards. We're simply not going to agree on this.

Please explain how negative liberty imposes a cost on someone

Lets see. If we say give buisness negative liberty that protects them from

a-child labour laws
b-pollution regulations
c-building safety codes


The world is an uglier place. It imposes harm on anyone that suffers under any of the above. But I allready know what your response is. My response. The market will not solve these problems. I fail to see how the ceaseless pursuit of profits could do this. If your answer is "so what" at least we are free then again, you have a different definition of freedom from myself.

If you think that freedom to starve, die and suffer is something to be defended then we ,again, are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Actually you need to reread my posts then. It seems to me you're the one who can't tell the state from private citizens/orgs.

The logic of rights you propose gives private citizens/orgs with far more power than the state to restrict my rights. It simply has to be "profitable"

[CDB]

Originally Posted by Clubberlang

dude, our disagreement doesn't stem from a "lack of knowledge" on my part or a need to read more. If you are, I suggest reading some T H Greene or Hegel. We're basically at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to this thing and we're not gonna agree.

Agreed, I was a prick to say that. I've dealt with and argued with a lot of people IRL and on line that end up not having done more than read a magazine article and think they're an expert. Wrong assumption though.

you're missing the point and being silly here. They ARE different because well... they are two different things. But if we take someone's right to life as sancrosanct, we have to give power to the state to help secure this right. Otherwise my I am left to defend my "right to life" on my own.

I see several problems here. One, I don't take the right to life as sancrosanct. If it were nature itself is violation of people's 'rights.' And once more I think this is because you are confusing empowerment with rights. Having the right to live does not guarantee me the ability to live. By this standard everyone who has died on an operating table that even had a hope of living has had their 'rights' violated. A right to something does not mean the guarantee of something or the ability to do that thing. What's more setting up the state as the guarantor of a right to live is off the mark. People may abdicate their protection duties to the police under most circumstances, however when dealing with an immediate threat under your system if the police don't thwart that threat they have violated the victim's rights. Which exposes the fallacy; the responsibility is the individual's. That it is generally accepted by most that we institute police forces to help us in the endeavor of protecting ourselves does not mean the ultimate responsibility for the enforcement of our right to live is, in the end, in anyone's hands but our own. It is simply accepted by most that they will entrust that duty to police under certain circumstances. There is another problem in that no individual can violate his own rights. The police however can. So while their general duty may be seen as defenders of people's rights, they are not inherently confined to that sphere of action, and can in fact act in complete violation of people's rights. An individual of sound mind is confined to that sphere as all his actions, even violence against himself, are voluntary.

This is the same type of "empowerment" that you seem to think voids positive rights. If you don't think freedom from discrimination is a right to be defended by the government then simply state such.

I have. It is not a right because it violates the rights of other people to choose not to associate with certain people. That is their choice, like it or not. I still fail too see how anyone's rights have been violated simply because a person denied someone entry to their property to use their services or purchase their goods. It is no more a violation of rights than to deny entry to your house of those you don't wish. It is the dicotomy between rights and empowerment, and the mixing up of the two that leads people, like you I believe, to view what is private property and the just exercise of property rights as some kind of rights violation when it is not.

Arguing that it is invalid because it requires government "empowerment" is hella weak. It overlooks the very reason that government exists.

No it does't, because I do not believe the government exists to empower people. It exists to protect people and their property from the aggression of others.

There are several examples in which the pursuit of profits, and blatant racism are not antithetical. It can be "good buisness" to be racist. You're making "free enterprise" a primary good and putting all else second. That's backasswards. We're simply not going to agree on this.

Give me an example of a situation in which it would be good business to be racist.

Lets see. If we say give buisness negative liberty that protects them from

a-child labour laws

And what kind of child labor are you referring to? Slave labor or impressed labor is a violation of children's rights. However that can only happen through government enablement or neglect. Either the government makes it legal to own people and use them as such, or ignores violations of their rights. Either way private businesses can't enslave people without the government's help.

If you mean voluntary child labor the answer is simple: there is no protection from it nor should there be.

b-pollution regulations

Simple application of property rights. And once more government enablement leads to violations, not protections of these rights. If a corporation is polluting and it affects you negatively you should have the right to use the court system to put a stop to it. It is aggression on your person and/or property. However it is the government that has decided that corporations can pollute so long as they're not polluting more than others in general. It is the government that has crippled the application of basic property rights to allow violations of this type, they are certainly not the defenders of people's rights in these matters. Little more than a century ago if a factory was polluting your land you could take them to court and stop them on basic property right arguments alone.

c-building safety codes

No sure what