On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul rose in Congress to justify why he would be the only Congressperson to vote against resolution House Resolution 676 hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an act - Paul's opposition, not the law being honored - Lew Rockwell calls "heroic."
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed segregation in public spaces, prohibiting discrimination in employment, government, and public facilities, officially bring to an end Jim Crow segregation in the US south. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a historic leap forward in realizing the personal liberty of black Americans, a people who, to that point, had been, with the blessings of the state, treated as second-class citizens.
To make things perfectly clear, Jim Crow segregation is racism. Jim Crow was to America what Apartheid was to South Africa. The ability of the government and property owners to discriminate against Africans Americans in employment, government, and public facilities is racism. Racism isn't just or for the most part a white man calling a black man "nigger" or his children "porch monkeys" (none of which is illegal, I hasten to add). Permitting white property owners to bar black Americans from eating in their restaurants is the more substantial instance of racism. This means that a person who supports the "right" of white property owners to discriminate against black Americans is a racist.
Now, according to Ron Paul, "the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." This statement is subject to empirical testing. Either race relations worsened because of the Civil Rights Act or they improved.
First, even the causal student of history knows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964reduced racism in the United States. The very purpose of the law, when enacted, was guaranteed to have that effect. Race relations immediate improved for black people. Tens of millions of white southerners, confronted with the unjust character of the system that had given them special rights, had their attitudes changed. The government no longer gave their racist practice its blessing. For many, the love of country was itself enough to prompt a change in consciousness. Nobody would seriously argue that racial tensions have been worse today than they were before the 1964 Civil Rights Act - well, except the nobody white nationalists who are upset over losing some of their white skin privilege.
Second, individual liberty was enhanced, not diminished, because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Lest we give into the propagandist's desire to treat words as glittering generalities, we have to ask, "What is liberty?" For Ron Paul, it's something only property owners enjoy. While that may be in keeping with the colonial masters and slaveholders who played a role in forming the government of this country, it's inconsistent with American culture at its present, more mature stage of development. Moreover, it's inconsistent with the broader meaning of liberty - if liberty is something that we are all to enjoy. After all, colonial masters and slaveowners were a tiny minority of the population of the colonies.
Property fetishism is a misunderstanding of the concept of liberty. According to Merriam-Webster, liberty is "the quality or state of being free... the power to do as one pleases... freedom from physical restraint... freedom from arbitrary or despotic control... the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges... the power of choice...." Permitting white property owners to bar black Americans from eating in white-owned restaurants transgresses all of these characteristics of liberty. Black Americans deprived of shopping where they please, of choosing where to take there family for a meal, do not enjoy liberty. Under de jure segregation (legal apartheid), blacks who attempted to choose to eat anywhere suffered the physical restraint of the law; clearly blacks did not enjoy freedom from physical restraint. Under Jim Crow segregation, blacks were subject to the arbitrary and despotic control of white property owners. Eliminating these controls on the movement and choices of black Americans is what we mean when we grant "the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges."
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 therefore enhanced individual liberty. So, as a simple point of historical fact, Paul is wrong. As a matter of basic definition, Paul is wrong, as well. Now, if liberty is defined as white people being able to treat black Americans as second-class citizens, then, sure, in that respect, liberty was diminished. But that's obviously not what liberty means. Indeed, it is to set liberty on its head to argue that all those aspects listed above apply to the "injustice" of depriving white men of the "freedom" to discriminate against black people. To say that a group is at liberty to oppress another group is a misuse of the term "liberty." To claim that stopping one group from oppressing another group infringes on the liberty of the former is a misuse of the term. You might as well call altruism "selfishness," war "peace," and slavery "freedom."
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country," Ron Paul said during his speech. Yes, of course, this is how it was possible to enlarge liberty in America. For a property fetishist like Paul, though, this is a terrible thing. "The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract," he said, "which are the bedrocks of free society."
Now, whether private property and contract are the bedrocks of a free society are up for discussion. I can argue that a particular form of private property, namely private control over capital, is the anti-thesis of a free society, since this arrangement compels the majority to labor for the few, and thus represents the conditions of exploitation. However, the question of whether these are the only elements of a free society, even if we agree that they are in some way useful to a society, is not really debatable: they aren't.
According to the Declaration of Independence, the bedrocks of a free society are these rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have already seen the definition of liberty and, based on this, personal freedom is inconsistent with property fetishism. There is no question that racial segregation makes black people unhappy (and if racial segregation makes white people happy, it does so at the expense of black people). As for life, consider the ability of white hospitals, with the better care they afford because of the greater wealth of white community, another result of racial segregation, to deny services to black Americans. That can be a life and death situation. (Ron Paul believes that people who can't afford medical care shouldn't get any, so what does he care? The man is a doctor who, as I understand it, even refused to treat people on welfare.)
To put all this another way, Ron Paul believes it is appropriate in this country for the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be sacrificed to the fetishism of private property, which is overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of a relative few white families. Paul's beliefs are not only openly racist, but openly classist. He doesn't even represent the interests of ordinary white people. So why do so many ordinary people, including black people, support this man?
Paul states, "Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism." There are three huge problems with this statement. First, do I need to point out the absurdity of demanding that one must read minds to address the problem of racism? From such a perspective, there really is no such thing as racism - or any other thing that has a cognitive component, since mind reading is impossible. Action is always just action, as there can never be motive. This goes for trying to determine motive in any wrongdoing; every homicide is the exactly same, etc. Throw reason out the window, people. It seems at times as if Ron Paul is not even remotely a member of Western civilization.
Second, one need not know what a person is thinking to see if they're acting in a discriminatory manner. If a white property owner is barring black Americans from his store, then this is by definition racism. Who cares what the property owner is thinking? You have the fact of racism in front of you. Third, racism is always more about institutional racism, patterns of residential and occupational segregation. There need be no racial consciousness for institutional discrimination to reproduce. And failure to do something to end institutional racism is itself a racist act, as it intentionally leaves in place social (economic, legal, political) arrangements that perpetuate racism.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed segregation in public spaces, prohibiting discrimination in employment, government, and public facilities, officially bring to an end Jim Crow segregation in the US south. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a historic leap forward in realizing the personal liberty of black Americans, a people who, to that point, had been, with the blessings of the state, treated as second-class citizens.
To make things perfectly clear, Jim Crow segregation is racism. Jim Crow was to America what Apartheid was to South Africa. The ability of the government and property owners to discriminate against Africans Americans in employment, government, and public facilities is racism. Racism isn't just or for the most part a white man calling a black man "nigger" or his children "porch monkeys" (none of which is illegal, I hasten to add). Permitting white property owners to bar black Americans from eating in their restaurants is the more substantial instance of racism. This means that a person who supports the "right" of white property owners to discriminate against black Americans is a racist.
Now, according to Ron Paul, "the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." This statement is subject to empirical testing. Either race relations worsened because of the Civil Rights Act or they improved.
First, even the causal student of history knows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964reduced racism in the United States. The very purpose of the law, when enacted, was guaranteed to have that effect. Race relations immediate improved for black people. Tens of millions of white southerners, confronted with the unjust character of the system that had given them special rights, had their attitudes changed. The government no longer gave their racist practice its blessing. For many, the love of country was itself enough to prompt a change in consciousness. Nobody would seriously argue that racial tensions have been worse today than they were before the 1964 Civil Rights Act - well, except the nobody white nationalists who are upset over losing some of their white skin privilege.
Second, individual liberty was enhanced, not diminished, because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Lest we give into the propagandist's desire to treat words as glittering generalities, we have to ask, "What is liberty?" For Ron Paul, it's something only property owners enjoy. While that may be in keeping with the colonial masters and slaveholders who played a role in forming the government of this country, it's inconsistent with American culture at its present, more mature stage of development. Moreover, it's inconsistent with the broader meaning of liberty - if liberty is something that we are all to enjoy. After all, colonial masters and slaveowners were a tiny minority of the population of the colonies.
Property fetishism is a misunderstanding of the concept of liberty. According to Merriam-Webster, liberty is "the quality or state of being free... the power to do as one pleases... freedom from physical restraint... freedom from arbitrary or despotic control... the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges... the power of choice...." Permitting white property owners to bar black Americans from eating in white-owned restaurants transgresses all of these characteristics of liberty. Black Americans deprived of shopping where they please, of choosing where to take there family for a meal, do not enjoy liberty. Under de jure segregation (legal apartheid), blacks who attempted to choose to eat anywhere suffered the physical restraint of the law; clearly blacks did not enjoy freedom from physical restraint. Under Jim Crow segregation, blacks were subject to the arbitrary and despotic control of white property owners. Eliminating these controls on the movement and choices of black Americans is what we mean when we grant "the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges."
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 therefore enhanced individual liberty. So, as a simple point of historical fact, Paul is wrong. As a matter of basic definition, Paul is wrong, as well. Now, if liberty is defined as white people being able to treat black Americans as second-class citizens, then, sure, in that respect, liberty was diminished. But that's obviously not what liberty means. Indeed, it is to set liberty on its head to argue that all those aspects listed above apply to the "injustice" of depriving white men of the "freedom" to discriminate against black people. To say that a group is at liberty to oppress another group is a misuse of the term "liberty." To claim that stopping one group from oppressing another group infringes on the liberty of the former is a misuse of the term. You might as well call altruism "selfishness," war "peace," and slavery "freedom."
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country," Ron Paul said during his speech. Yes, of course, this is how it was possible to enlarge liberty in America. For a property fetishist like Paul, though, this is a terrible thing. "The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract," he said, "which are the bedrocks of free society."
Now, whether private property and contract are the bedrocks of a free society are up for discussion. I can argue that a particular form of private property, namely private control over capital, is the anti-thesis of a free society, since this arrangement compels the majority to labor for the few, and thus represents the conditions of exploitation. However, the question of whether these are the only elements of a free society, even if we agree that they are in some way useful to a society, is not really debatable: they aren't.
According to the Declaration of Independence, the bedrocks of a free society are these rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have already seen the definition of liberty and, based on this, personal freedom is inconsistent with property fetishism. There is no question that racial segregation makes black people unhappy (and if racial segregation makes white people happy, it does so at the expense of black people). As for life, consider the ability of white hospitals, with the better care they afford because of the greater wealth of white community, another result of racial segregation, to deny services to black Americans. That can be a life and death situation. (Ron Paul believes that people who can't afford medical care shouldn't get any, so what does he care? The man is a doctor who, as I understand it, even refused to treat people on welfare.)
To put all this another way, Ron Paul believes it is appropriate in this country for the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be sacrificed to the fetishism of private property, which is overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of a relative few white families. Paul's beliefs are not only openly racist, but openly classist. He doesn't even represent the interests of ordinary white people. So why do so many ordinary people, including black people, support this man?
Paul states, "Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism." There are three huge problems with this statement. First, do I need to point out the absurdity of demanding that one must read minds to address the problem of racism? From such a perspective, there really is no such thing as racism - or any other thing that has a cognitive component, since mind reading is impossible. Action is always just action, as there can never be motive. This goes for trying to determine motive in any wrongdoing; every homicide is the exactly same, etc. Throw reason out the window, people. It seems at times as if Ron Paul is not even remotely a member of Western civilization.
Second, one need not know what a person is thinking to see if they're acting in a discriminatory manner. If a white property owner is barring black Americans from his store, then this is by definition racism. Who cares what the property owner is thinking? You have the fact of racism in front of you. Third, racism is always more about institutional racism, patterns of residential and occupational segregation. There need be no racial consciousness for institutional discrimination to reproduce. And failure to do something to end institutional racism is itself a racist act, as it intentionally leaves in place social (economic, legal, political) arrangements that perpetuate racism.
58 comments:
I do support civil rights all the way, of course, but I was wondering if you could show me where it says that private business owners cannot discriminate about who they allow into their businesses. The first section discusses "public accomodations" but this seems to mean places where one sits down or sleeps. I could not find anywhere else where it seemed to ban the right of a barber, jeweler or grocer to ban Blacks from his business. Wondering if you could elaborate as the Net is lacking in such rejoinders.
Also, wondering if you could do a post on White Separatism. This is the latest tact that the White Nationalists are taking, and I have yet to see any reason or law based arguments against it, though I was hoping to find some. You seem just the guy to do that.
Really enjoy this commentary and wish there was more of this around. I can't believe I have to search around to find arguments like yours. They should be on the tip of every liberal intellectual's tongue.
There are six parts to the law. Without going into the titles, the Act, among other things, guarantees equal voting rights; prohibits discrimination/segregation in places of public accommodation involved in interstate commerce; prohibits discrimination by employers involved in interstate commerce or doing business with the federal government, schools, and trade unions, schools, and employers; and guarantees nondiscrimination in the distribution of funds under federally assisted programs. The law has been expanded through additional legislation and judicial interpretations.
On this matter about white separatism. One of the arguments involves this so-called "right to secede." Ron Paul speaks favorable about this. Well, there isn't such a right. There is a right to overthrow the government, though, and it's found in one of the founding documents of our country: the Declaration of Independence. At any rate, there can be no all-white states.
Now, more generally, the problem of white separatism has to do with the denial of organic rights to nonwhites. If white people act in such a way as to systematically denies the organic rights recognized by our government, and this includes failing to prevent circumstances from creating or maintaining such an end, then that is something we can do something about it. That's the standard.
First, even the casual student of history knows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reduced institutional racism in the United States.
Of course, no law, whether federal, state or local can change hearts, at least not overnight.
Racism is for the most part institutional and structural. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 went far in reducing institutional racism. It failed in changing the structure of racial caste in the United States. It did reduce race prejudice and individual acts of discrimination based on race. Please note that I did not say it eliminated racism. I don't think we disagree, Jamie.
As for hearts, you can change hearts, and government action is a powerful way to do this. To use a relevant example, as the legal status of blacks improved throughout the civil rights movement, lynching and other forms of racial murder declined. When black life was disrespected at all levels, it was relatively easy to sacrifice blacks for white affirmation. When blacks become identified with being human, it becomes more difficult to use them as objects.
Of course, racial oppression comes in different forms, and the disrespecting of blacks in the post-civil rights period has led to a marked increase in hardened hearts over the damage our government does to black families through mass incarceration.
We are a long way from ending racism in America.
You're an idiot.
Racism is giving preference to one race over another or discrimanating based on race.
Business owners have the right to serve whomever they wish. Property owners have the right to ban whomever they wish from their property for whatever reason they wish.
Read the constitution. Or piss off!
hahajohnnyb, you write, "Racism is giving preference to one race over another or discrimanating [sic] based on race." Then you write, "Property owners have the right to ban whomever they wish from their property for whatever reason they wish." Therefore, you support property owners giving preference to and discriminating against people based on race. In other words, you support racism. I don't know whether you meant to make this argument, but if you want to advance an anti-racist position, then you need to drop your advocacy of the second statement.
I hope you will return to this blog entry and read this question, because I would really like an answer: Where in the Constitution of the United States of America does it say that property owners can discriminate against people based on race?
Its sad that we have come to a point in our society that we have forgotten that discrimination is a right. Yes, you read that correctly, an individual has the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Yes they includes race, religion, sex, people who wear their baseball caps backwards, or dye their hair green, and people who wear ties to work.
A business is private property, just like your home, and just as a homeowner you have the right to choose whom you allow in your home, a business has the freedom to choose who it will or will not serve/hire.
I know that this seems to contridict the idea of civil rights, but even people who we agree have dispicable ideas about race, sex, etc. are also entitled to rights. Government has no business being the thought police, by undermining some people's rights in their attempt to make a better society.
hahajohnnyb says "an individual has the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason."
Where is this right recognized besides in the skulls of racists? Can you show me where in the Constitution people are given the right to discriminate?
Just stumbled across this post by chance, but I'd like to make a comment.
While I do disagree with you, you don't seem to be stupid by any means. With that, I would like to ask why you use such a weak argument as asking where the Constitution states certain things.
A fun way to prove how silly your argument is would be to shoot it back at you.
Where in the Constitution does it say that you're allowed to wear sunglasses? Where in the Constitution does it say that you're allowed to use a computer?
Since the Constitution doesn't give us those rights, does that mean we're not allowed to wear sunglasses or use computers? Of course not. In the same regard, the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly give citizens the right to discriminate does not mean that we do not have it.
You should also understand that those that advocate the idea that being racism is a right do not necessarily support it. You accused "hahajonnyb" of supporting racism. Simply because he advocates free choice does not mean that he agrees with the choice. I'm sure you've heard the saying that goes something like "While I disagree with what you have to say, I will defend to the death your right to say it." It's the same idea.
"I would like to ask why you use such a weak argument as asking where the Constitution states certain things." Because the Constitution delineates powers and recognizes rights. If it isn't important what the Constitution says, then why have one?
"Where in the Constitution does it say that you're allowed to wear sunglasses? Where in the Constitution does it say that you're allowed to use a computer?" Why would the Constitution need to tell you that you were allowed to wear and use such things?
"Since the Constitution doesn't give us those rights, does that mean we're not allowed to wear sunglasses or use computers? In the same regard, the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly give citizens the right to discriminate does not mean that we do not have it." Do you have the right to jab your sunglasses into your neighbor's eye? Do you have the rights to use your computer to hack into the defense grid and start WWIII?
You clearly misunderstand the concept of rights, Anon. You do not have the right to be racist because others have the right not to be victimized by racism. This is a fundamental human right. The Constitution and state and federal laws recognize this right (though they don't go far enough in protecting it). Since one has the right not to be victimized by racism, one does not have the right to be a racist. You have the right to hold racist thoughts in your head, but the moment you act on them to harm others, then you are violating the rights of other people. You have no right to do that.
"You should also understand that those that advocate the idea that being racism is a right do not necessarily support it." You're wrong here, too. Since there is no right to practice racism, advocating a right to be racist is by definition supporting it. Moreover, even if there were a right to be racist, it would be a false right, and opposition to eliminate it, or even recognizing a false right as a legitimate one, equates to supporting it. Either you stand for it or you stand against it. There is no neutral position on racism. You are a racist or an anti-racist.
"You accused 'hahajonnyb' of supporting racism. Simply because he advocates free choice does not mean that he agrees with the choice." hahajonnyb does support racism. Anybody who believes that white people have the right to discriminate against black people is a racist.
"I'm sure you've heard the saying that goes something like 'While I disagree with what you have to say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.' It's the same idea." Racism is an ideology and a practice in which members of one group, usually through institutional mechanisms, discriminate against members of other group in such a way as to enhance their group privileges. There is no right to do this.
There is, of course a right to free speech, which you will find in the Constitution, which takes us back to the silliness of your first point about sunglasses and computers. You know you have this right because the Constitution guarantees it.
Comparing the right to free speech and "the right to be racist" is an insult to the whole notion of rights.
Huh? I mosty certainly do not support racism. I see racism as just another form of collectivism, which only acknokledges people as "the masses" rather than seeing each human as a unique individual. Philosophically, I am very much opposed to racism because it seeks to lump all people with certain physical traits into groups. I do not believe that people can be defined into groups, and believe that anyone who thinks that humanity can be segmented and collectivized into groups is simply wrong minded.
Only individuals exist. There are no groups, only people with common traits. As such, only an individual can have rights, since groups do not exist, groups simply cannot have rights which are inherent and unalienable. This does not mean that a group of individuals cannot form contractual corporations, co-ops or labor unions which can create contracts as a group which grants the group rights, but all rights held by a group are contractual rights, not natural rights.
A contact is formed through a mutual agreement of individuals. Whether written or express, no contract is valid unless both parties enter into the contract willingly. No side may be forced to enter a contract against their will.
When you go to the store and buy something, you have made an express contract with the store, and fullfilled the contract when you paid. If that store owner refuses to sell to you, then he cannot be forced to sell because the store owner has rights. You can not force the seller into accepting a contract against his will, just as the seller cannot force you to buy.
A property owner has purchased rights to a property conveying ownership. Ownership gives a property owner the right to include or exclude whomever they wish. Just like you have the right to include or exclude anyone you wish from your personal home.
Undermining the rights of the individual owner for the imaginary rights of a group is a violation of natural law, which only acknowledges the rights of the individual.
In the Constitution, the 1st amendment conveys to the people the right to assemble. This conveys more than simply right to go out in the street and march in protest of the government, but also the freedom of association, meaning that you have a natural right to associate with whomever you wish. The government cannot mandate that you associate with anyone against your consent. This gives individuals, businesses and any other organization formed by free contract the right to discriminate against whomever they please for whatever reason. Many of the aspects of civil rights legislation undermines the basic freedoms and rights of the individual and the contract. Thereforth, they are unjust, regardless their intent or the fact that they were passed through the democratic process, because they are a violation of natural laws.
For another example, to keep everything in perspective, slavery while being a recognized institution was never really legal, because the institution of Slavery undermined the the slave's freedom of contract, and right to assembly which was inherent in the slave's natural rights to liberty. Even though the democratic legal system recognized an illegal contract of ownership of an individual, the presumed was always illegal before the abolution of slavery because it violated natural law. Since all rights come from Nature, and Nature over rules the laws of men, no law can legally enforce an involuntary contract.
Another thing, is that no one has a natural right to initiate violence against another individual, because all have a right to life and a reasonable expectation of peace. Anyone who intiates violence against another individual regardless of there motives has committed a criminal act. The basic function of government to defend the rights of the individual, so in the event of violence the government has the constitutional obligation to seek justice against the offender.
In reality there is no such thing as racism, since no such thing as race exists, and no groups exist unless they voluntarily identify themselves a member of a group and enter into a contract to that extent. If an individual chooses not to do business with the purple people, green people or blue people, then the government can not force them to enter a contract against their will, because the function of the government is to protect the rights of the individual and just like the slave, the bigot cannot be forced to enter a contract against his will.
Now, you might think that supporting the rights of the individual is racist, a concept that I whole heartly reject as a logical fallacy because groups do not exist, thereforth race cannot exist, but that is more of a symptom of your collectivist mental disorder rather than my personal beliefs. So in the future, I would thank you for not projecting your schizophrenic hallucinations on me. Good day, sir.
Earlier you wrote that "an individual has the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason." So you believe that you should be able discriminate against individuals based on their skin color. You believe you should be able to be a racist.
However, today you write, "I see racism as just another form of collectivism," which you are "very much opposed to...because it seeks to lump all people with certain physical traits into groups." Despite the fact that you argue that individuals have the right to discriminate against others based on the color of their skin, you claim to be opposed to treating people as members of groups - that is, discriminating people based on skin color. So you are "very much opposed" to something you believe you have a absolute right to do.
I'm not going to spend much time on this silliness about contracts. It will suffice to point out that your claim that "[a]contact is formed through a mutual agreement of individuals" in self-evidently false. Contracts exist as part of the law of obligation. Some relationships are voluntary. Many others are not. Big ticket items like the social contract are not formed through mutual agreement. You're born into rules independent of your will. Your rights, along with your obligations, exist because you exist in society, a reality that precedes you as an individual. The rules - norms, mores, etc. - that guide our behavior are features of our collective existence.
Tell the next person you're stabbing in the heart that the contract that says you're murdering him is not one into which you voluntarily entered and therefore you don't have to follow it. Tell him that you hadn't yet negotiated the terms of your relationship with him.
Your "theory" is preposterous, hahajohnnyb, a convoluted mess that has no bearing on the reality of human society except as an ideology that rationalizes racism.
How about this gem: "slavery while being a recognized institution was never really legal." You're trying to deny a material fact. Of course it was legal. What you meant to say is that while slavery was legal it was not moral. Morality doesn't come from the heavens (there are no gods). Morality isn't found in nature (ant colonies have no morality). Morality is a social product. Racial slavery is wrong because it is wrong to oppress, exploit, and - here it comes - discriminate against people based on skin color.
Yet, you believe that individuals have the right to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin. But, wait, you don't believe this because you are "very much opposed" to racism, which is discriminating against people based on the color of their skin. Talk about schizophrenia.
"In reality there is no such thing as racism, since no such thing as race exists." Of course race exists. The privileges of my white skin exist independent of my wishes. The system of racism - that is, discriminating against individuals based on the color of their skin - creates racial categories, again, a practice of which you simultaneously approve and disapprove.
Contrary to your claim that "no groups exist unless they voluntarily identify themselves a member of a group and enter into a contract to that extent," individuals born to black families did not volunteer to be black. Nor did I volunteer to be white. Black people can believe they are white all day long, but they will be seen as black and treated as black and, if you had your way, legally discriminated against because they're black, because, according to you, even though it's wrong to treat people as members of groups, you have a natural right to do precisely this.
"Now, you might think that supporting the rights of the individual is racist." Don't be silly. Supporting the rights of individuals means that you do not believe there is a right to discriminate. My position is consistent. What's at issue is your argument that individuals have the right to discriminate against individuals based on the color of their skin.
"So in the future, I would thank you for not projecting your schizophrenic hallucinations on me. Good day, sir."
Your hallucination is that individuals do not exist in society. You're schizophrenia is that you oppose racism but believe that white property owners should be able discriminate against black people. You can't have it both ways. Either you oppose discriminating or you support it. Either you are anti-racist of you are a racist.
So which is it?
Yes, people have a right to be racists, just like people have a right to believe whatever they wish. People have an absolute right to their own mind and thier own thoughts, and express those thoughts however they see fit, so long as they do not violate another's rights. People have the right to associate themselves with whomever they choose, and by the same token they have the right to disassociate with whomever they choose.
I have no interest in policing the minds of other, even those with whom I strongly disagree.
Allow me to answer your own question with your own answer:
"Why would the Constitution need to tell you that you were allowed to wear and use such things?"
"Because the Constitution delineates powers and recognizes rights. If it isn't important what the Constitution says, then why have one?"
The point I was trying to make is that your argument was trying to say "If it doesn't say that you have it, then you don't." If we only had the right to be racist if the Constitution gave it to us, then we only have the right to wear sunglasses if the Constitution gave it to us. That is why I argue that your logic is flawed.
"Do you have the right to jab your sunglasses into your neighbor's eye? Do you have the rights to use your computer to hack into the defense grid and start WWIII?"
Not without their consent. If they consent to it, then, yes, you have the right to do it.
"Since one has the right not to be victimized by racism, one does not have the right to be a racist. You have the right to hold racist thoughts in your head, but the moment you act on them to harm others, then you are violating the rights of other people."
I suppose I am contesting your usage of the word "harm" in this statement. I would ask "What if my actions don't harm someone? For example, saying that black people can't buy my products doesn't harm them." Please keep in mind that saying "If you're not helping, then you're hurting" is a false dichotomy and a logical fallacy.
"There is no neutral position on racism. You are a racist or an anti-racist."
I can agree with this statement. Keep in mind that you can be anti-racist and still believe that someone has the right to be racist. I'm anti-alcohol and I think that anyone that drinks alcohol is making a poor life decision, but I still believe people have the right to drink alcohol.
"Anybody who believes that white people have the right to discriminate against black people is a racist."
" 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"
The Merriam-Webster dictionary would seem to disagree with you. As I implied with my previous statement, thinking that you have the right to be racist does not make you racist. Having a "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" is what makes you racist.
hahajohnnyb, who said anything about policing what you believe? Racism isn't about what you believe. It's about what you do. You believe that white property owners should be able to discriminate against black people. Discrimination is action. You are confusing prejudice and racism. You believe there is a right to ACT - DISCRIMINATE - in a certain way. Discrimination is not a thought you have in your head, but a thing you DO to others.
"Do you have the right to jab your sunglasses into your neighbor's eye? Do you have the rights to use your computer to hack into the defense grid and start WWIII?"
Not without their consent. If they consent to it, then, yes, you have the right to do it.
You're being ridiculous. You don't have a right to harm a person even if she agrees to it. If society permits you to assault a person - let's say in a boxing match - this is not a right. If society decides to ban boxing because it harms the health and safety of another person, then there is no constitutional right you can cite that will overturn that ban. I am a huge fan of boxing, but if the state outlaws it, there is no recourse under the Constitution.
You think my logic is flawed, but, as you show in the above response, you're the one with flawed logic. You just don't get it, Anon. You can't point to a right in the Constitution that allows white property owners to discriminate against black persons anymore than you can find a right in the Constitution that says you can physically assault another human being - even if that person agrees to be assaulted. Even if black persons consented to being discriminated against, there is no right to discriminate. Moreover, the law of the land does not allow you to do so and that law is constitutional.
Not to be rude, but can you read what you post? However weak Merriam-Webster's definition of racism is, it clearly says in the very definition you quoted that racism is "racial prejudice or discrimination." Hahajohnny believes that white property owners have the right to discriminate against black persons. That, according to Merriam-Webster, is RACISM.
Using your own source, Anon, I am right and you are wrong.
Well, I'll just say a few things:
1. I am not arguing legality here (legal vs. illegal). I am arguing ethics (right vs. wrong). I only brought up the Constitution because your argument dealt with it and I wanted to use your own argument to make a point. I don't care what the law says. The law is not necessarily ethical. Just because something is legal does not make it right, nor does something being illegal mean it's wrong.
If it's your belief that you can't harm someone, even with their consent, that is perfectly fine to believe, if you so choose. However, that leads to my next point -
2. You are stating that there are certain things that consenting adults cannot do with or to each other. I believe that this is a poor line of thinking. This line of thinking constitutes next to NO faith in the human race and I, quite frankly, find that despicable. I believe that we will only be able to agree to disagree on this one.
3. In regard to your response to the definition of racist:
A. If you are implying that Merriam-Webster's definition is weak, please find me one that suits your argument better.
B. I'll try to be more clear. Per that definition, racism is "racial prejudice or discrimination." NOT "the belief that racial prejudice or discrimination is a right."
If what you are trying to say is that believing that someone can do something and actually doing that thing are the SAME thing, then I don't know what to say to you. I'll try to break it down in a very, very simple manner, just to see if I can make more sense to you. (I don't mean that in a rude way. I am not implying that you would only understand simply arguments. I am admitting that I might be speaking in a convoluted manner and that my points might be cloudy.)
I DO NOT like boxing. (Non-boxing)
I DO think that it is OK for YOU to like boxing.
I STILL think it's a bad idea for you to like boxing. (Because it promotes violence, which is bad.)
Do you see how there can be a difference? Now, apply that to racism.
I'll keep this simple:
I DO NOT think that black people are better than white people. (Non-racist)
I DO think that it is OK for YOU to think that black people are better than white people.
I STILL think that it's a bad idea for you to think that black people are better than white people. (Because it promotes racism, which is bad.)
Really, really bottom-line. Thinking that someone has the right to be racist and ACTUALLY BEING racist are NOT the same.
Your own definition is that racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." You believe that people have the right to believe this. The use of the term "right" here is irrelevant if by "belief" you mean only that which a person carries in their head. But if by "right" you mean that somebody has the right to act in a racist manner, which, using your definition, means "racial discrimination," then you are advocating racism, since part of racism is advocacy for the right to discriminate based on race.
Maybe it will help you to be clear about what hahajohnnyb is saying. He says that white property owners have the right to discriminate against black persons. He believes that our society should be ordered in such a way that white persons not only can discriminate against black persons but have the right to do so. This is more than mere belief with hahajohnnyb, since he not only advocates the idea publicly, but supports, or at least defends, a politician who works to create such a societal order. To use a dramatic analogy, one may think that Germans should be allowed to exclude Jews from German institutions, but when one goes public with this view, saying that Germans have the right to discriminate against Jews, and supports and defends politicians who make this part of their politics - let's say the Nazis - then one is a racist. After all, Anon, believing that Germans had the right to discriminate against Jews is the essence of the racism that inhered in Nazism.
It's absurd to deny any of this, Anon. To continue arguing over this point really is a waste of time. Bottom line: A public position that whites have the right to discriminate against blacks is racism.
Toward the end of your comments you try to form what looks like syllogisms to clarify your argument. The proper form isn't there, and I am not going to fix it for you. But I can make all this super easy to understand: Racism is wrong and white property owners have no right to discriminate against black persons. That's the argument boiled down to its essence. The fact that you think it's okay for an individual to think that "black people are better than white people" has no bearing on this discussion. We are talking about whether white property owners have the right to discriminate against black people. They don't, and it's racist to advocate that they do. We don't care what white property owners are thinking, Anon. We care what they DO. They can hold in their heads the most obscene thoughts about black people. It's when they discriminate against black people that we stop them.
On this business about harming people, you misrepresent my argument. You stated, "If it's your belief that you can't harm someone, even with their consent, that is perfectly fine to believe, if you so choose." I didn't say that you can't harm someone even if they consent to be harmed. I even gave an example: boxing. What I said is that you do not have a RIGHT to harm a person even if they want to be harmed. You can harm persons with their consent as long as there is no law forbidding it. If it were banned there would be no right to which you could appeal that would overturn the ban.
Of course there are certain things consenting adults cannot do with or to each other. If you ask me to kill you and I do, then I have committed murder. Murder is illegal. There is no right to murder, only legitimate excuses. Murdering people because they want to die is not among those legitimate excuses.
Finally, the better definition of racism is one that, say, I would give you, given that I am a trained social scientist who works in the area of race and ethnicity. I based my definitions on what the science says. A dictionary definition of a complex sociological phenomenon is not definitive to an expert. Nor should it be to anybody; a dictionary definition is for proper spelling, pronunciation, and a quick meaning. Consider the definition of the "atom" in Merriam-webster: atom. No physicist would find such a definition adequate for a serious discussion about this area of physical reality. Likewise, no sociologist finds adequate a general dictionary definition of any area of social reality. (Look at Merriam-Webster's definition of class. It's hardly suitable for any serious discussion of social class.) It's not a matter of what suits my argument better; it's a matter of what the experts who have studied the matter know about racism. If you're curious about definitions I use, read more of my blog.
First off, Social Science is a pseudo-science based on the false premise that people can be grouped and categorized. It has its roots in the Eugenicist movement and Nazi Germany, Get over yourself, you chose a dumb ass major in college.
There is no such thing as group rights, groups don't have rights only individuals do. All individuals have equal rights, regardless of their race black or white, green or purple.
Sellers have the right to discriminate based on whatever reason. Suppose a seller is running a liquor store, and a potential buyer comes into the store drunk. Does the seller have a right to refuse to sell liquor to the drunk? Yes of course he does.
Suppose someone goes into a gun store to buy a gun. The gun seller notices that the potential gun buyer seems agitated, wild eyed and nervous. Does the gun seller have the obligation to sell to this person? No! Of course he does not.
If anything in the above cases, the seller would be acting in the interest of the community if he refused the sale of alcohol or guns in the above examples.
My personal example, would be that I keep kennels as a hobby. When I breed I advertise my puppies with the caveat that I am a discriminating seller. I believe that my obligation is to the dog, and the breed, creating the highest quality animals, and placing those animals with the best homes suited to care for them. I check my buyers out, and I refuse to sell to buyers who do not meet my standards, or refuse to accept my contract of sale which requires the buyers to maintain a certain level of care for the animals.
Although, I see keeping kennels as a hobby, some people might see it as a business. Since I am white, the pups are my property, under your premise, I should be forced to sell to all black buyers whether they meet my standards or not. So if some one like Micheal Vick attempted to purchase one of my animals, I should not have the legal right to refuse the sale, because I am white and Micheal Vick is black.
My obligation is to the well being of the animals, so I refuse to sell to people for all sorts of reasons. I will not sell to poor people, people with bad credit. People who do not own their own property. Should I be allowed to discriminate with whom I do business? I certainly think so.
Another thing that is deeply flawed in you premise, is that its something of a Red Herring. Most retail business is done by Big Box outfits, and they would never use race as a basis for discrimination. Can you imagine what would happen to Wal Mart's business if they decided that they were no longer going to serve the black or Hispanic community? Hell, the bad press alone would be enough to destroy the company, and the same thing goes for any large retailer.
The only businesses that would be effected are small local businesses. These businesses might have a valid reason to refusing to serving certain people or certain districts in some cities. For Example, blacks might tend to live in more crime prone areas. Imagine you are running a pizza delivery company and are concerned about the safety of your drivers, wouldn't it be irresponsible as a manager, to continue deliveries in areas that are prone to criminal activity?
Ok, now imagine that you are running an upscale bar, and want to maintain a certain kind of high paying clientele, so you hire a doorman who judges people based on the way they look. Would you be justified in maintaining your business establishment by selectively including and excluding people? Of course you would! Your obligation is to pay the banker, pay your employees and the only way to do that is to give your customers what they want.
Assume that a night club is doing a thriving business serving a mostly white clientele, when a smaller number a blacks start to frequent the business driving off many of the customers, hurting the night club owners business. Is it not in the Night Club owners right to refuse service to the blacks that are hurting his business by driving off the white customers, even if the whites are leaving only because of their inherent racism?
Suppose the scenario is changed, and imagine that their is a gay night club, and the local girls decide that they like to go their to dance. The local guys figure out that girls are going to the gay night club and they follow them. The homosexual customers of the night club don't like the heterosexual invasion, and they leave hurting the business owners profits so he can no longer pay the bills. Does the homosexual night club owner have the right to ban heterosexuals?
Anyhow, Social Science is absolutely worthless, and seeing you try to compare to a precise science like physics is freaking hilarious. You people are all screwed up and backwards in you thinking because you believe in things that do not exist, such as groups. Only the individual exists, there are no such things as groups, and your entire "science" is based on the flawed ideology of collectivism. It's your flawed thinking that allow such things as racism to exist.
Read the Declaration of Independence, it outlines the philosophical premise of the United States. Also read some Ayn Rand, and quit being a freedom hater. Freedom is always the solution to every problem that humanity has always faced, but somehow dunderheads such as yourself always manage to screw things up.
I guess if you want this blog entry to be "hahajohnnyb makes a public ass of himself," then who am I to stop you? You are doing a terrific job of it. My policy with you is that there will be no sparing you the embarrassment. Read on and see how I devastate your point of view.
Sociology, anthropology, etc., are sciences that existed long before Eugenics and Nazi Germany. Social science journals and books have been in regular production for centuries. These are scientific disciplines because they use the scientific method, a way of knowing that can be applied to anything that actually exists.
You would save yourself embarrassment by actually taking a little time to check out the facts before putting your fingers in motion.
There are English speakers and there are French speakers. These are two objective social groups, as language is an objective fact. Language exists and bind people together into linguistic groups. Social scientists didn't create linguistic categories or the different groups organized around them. Social scientists simply study the fact of linguistic groups.
There are Christians and Muslims. Social scientists didn't create these religious groups. Social scientists study them. There are capitalists and workers. Again, these groups are objective realities, not anything social scientists created.
What you are doing in your comments in announcing to the world that you're an ignoramus. So let's keep going.
"Sellers have the right to discriminate based on whatever reason."
No, they don't. There is no right to discriminate based on any reason. You will not find this right anywhere in the Constitution, either express or implied. If the state makes a law banning all discrimination based on race, there is no right to which you can appeal that will overturn the ban. Simply asserting a right doesn't make a right exist. Rights exists and are recognized.
Indeed, the "right" you claim allows you to discriminate against black people violates fundamental and organize rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, namely liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if we take the example of a private hospital that refuses to serve a dying black child (which under your theory is permissible), then we can throw the right to life in there, as well. Liberty is the personal freedom to do what I want without arbitrary interference from others. If you aim to stop me from doing something, you need a rational reason to do so. I am a black man who wants to eat in a white man's restaurant. If the white man denies me service because of my skin color, this is a clear violation of my right to liberty. Obviously such arbitrary restrictions make me and others with my skin color unhappy. The right that matters is the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't harm other people, not the right to use my property any way I see fit, especially including harming other people.
You have the argument completely backwards. You see a right where no right exists and want to use this fictitious right to violate the actual rights of individuals. What you are doing is trying to rationalize your racism in the language of rights. You're abusing the language to maintain an immoral position, one that is quite contrary to the entire notion of right.
"Suppose a seller is running a liquor store, and a potential buyer comes into the store drunk...."
Drunkenness is a behavior. Many states forbid liquor stores from selling alcohol to drunk patrons.
"Suppose someone goes into a gun store to buy a gun...."
Agitated, wild eyes, and nervous is a behavioral set. Many states make it illegal for a gun owner to sell to a customer who they believe might use his purchase to cause harm.
Being black is a racial category, a social status, not a category of behavior legitimately restricted by the state or seen as the basis for rational judgment on the part of the seller. Your analogy completely fails.
"If anything in the above cases, the seller would be acting in the interest of the community if he refused the sale of alcohol or guns in the above examples."
But you argue that there are no groups, only individuals. A community is a group, therefore it does not exist. Your hypothetical seller cannot possibly be acting in the interests of the community since there is no such thing.
"My personal example, would be that I keep kennels as a hobby. When I breed I advertise my puppies with the caveat that I am a discriminating seller. I believe that my obligation is to the dog, and the breed, creating the highest quality animals, and placing those animals with the best homes suited to care for them. I check my buyers out, and I refuse to sell to buyers who do not meet my standards, or refuse to accept my contract of sale which requires the buyers to maintain a certain level of care for the animals."
If one of your criteria was that you will not sell to a person because he has black skin, then you would be engaging in racial discrimination and there is no right you can appeal to that justifies your racist actions.
"So if some one like Micheal Vick attempted to purchase one of my animals, I should not have the legal right to refuse the sale, because I am white and Micheal Vick is black."
If you refuse to sell to Vick on the grounds that his past behavior with respect to animals makes him a risk, then you are making a rational judgment based on observable action. If you don't sell to any blacks, then you are engaging in racial discrimination, and there is no right to do that.
Your discussion about the negative effects to businesses not selling to particular racial groups is a red herring (that means that it is completely irrelevant to the discussion).
"[B]usinesses might have a valid reason to refusing to serving certain people or certain districts in some cities. For Example, blacks might tend to live in more crime prone areas. Imagine you are running a pizza delivery company and are concerned about the safety of your drivers, wouldn't it be irresponsible as a manager, to continue deliveries in areas that are prone to criminal activity?"
But, according to you, there are no groups, only individuals. Therefore, there can be no "black area of town," since every part of town is inhabited only by individuals, not by black persons or white persons. Your own argument makes such a rationale impossible. No groups, no black neighborhoods, no reason to refuse service. In fact, why are you even talking about black people if there are no groups? (By the way, I quit working at a pizza restaurant because they refused to serve the black areas of town.)
"Ok, now imagine that you are running an upscale bar, and want to maintain a certain kind of high paying clientele, so you hire a doorman who judges people based on the way they look."
If he is choosing people based on the amount of money they make based on how they look, then he is making a group decision. Yet, there are only individuals, so there is no basis for making such a judgment.
"Assume that a night club is doing a thriving business serving a mostly white clientele, when a smaller number a blacks start to frequent the business driving off many of the customers, hurting the night club owners business. Is it not in the Night Club owners right to refuse service to the blacks that are hurting his business by driving off the white customers, even if the whites are leaving only because of their inherent racism?"
There is no such right, as we have established. The club owner would be engaging in racial discrimination. However, your example is nonsensical from your point of view because there is no such thing as a black person. There are no groups, remember? You have said it over and over again. There are only individuals.
"Social Science is absolutely worthless, and seeing you try to compare to a precise science like physics is freaking hilarious."
Yet you said that social science stared with eugenics and Nazism, so how can you claim to know the first thing about it? Tell you what, when you finally make an argument that shows you actually know what your talking about, then maybe people will listen to your opinion. As it stands, you can't even get out of the gates and into the running.
"[R]ead some Ayn Rand...."
One always knows when the person they're dealing with is a hack when they bring Ayn Rand into the discussion. You might as well stamp your forehead with the word "ignoramus."
"somehow dunderheads such as yourself always manage to screw things up."
Right, because we stopped white property owners from discriminating against black persons. We really fucked up that one.
Remember when you told me to read the Constitution as a defense of your arguments? I am still waiting for you to produce a right, express or implied, that says white property owners have the right to discriminate against black people.
The 5th and 14th Amendments clearly state a right to private property. The Declaration of independence clearly statesm that governments are instituted amoungst men for the protection of property amoungst other things.
A very basic property right is the right to exclusion. Like you home, your car or you clothes, you have a very implict right to exclude others from using your property.
The 9th amendment states that enumerating certain rights does not mean that other rights do not exist. Since the right to private property has been mentioned before and after the 9th amendment it only rational to assume that property right were then, and still are protected, including the right to exclude.
Since people have a right to exclude, and also have an absolute right to their own minds, their own opinions and the right to express and act on those thoughts and opinions as well as express those opinions, its only rational to assume that the rights outline in the 1st Amendment would be protected while a person is exercising thier property rights.
The Federal Government has no authority to regulate commerce inside of a state, only the power to regulate commerce amongst the various States. No act of Congress has to power to undermine the rights of the private property owner.
Since the individual has the right to think whatever he wants, and since the right to exclusion is implicite in private property rights, then an individual has the right to exclude anyone from his private property for any reason. Creating an exception based on the imaginary concept of group rights, which do not exist, is invalid, and illegal as they amount to a thought crime.
I do not want to live in a nation where we have thought crimes or thought criminals.
People like you who persist in this white guilt bullshit, are the ones who perpetuate racism in this country because you continue to acknowledge not only the existence of race but also the special status of members of specific races, or other appointed victim groups like Women, homosexuals or the disabled.
Given that a black man is about to become the next president of the United States, its kinda nutty to think that racism still exists in the United States. If a black guy can be elected by popular vote in to the highest office in the World, I'm pretty sure that you can quit pretending like you are still fighting 1960's segregationist America. That America does not exist anymore, all of those people are either dead or in the nursing home now.
At last its time to get rid of all of that old 1960s era affirmative action legislation, and get on with the 21st Century. People like you create artificial divisions amoungst people, and invent artificial solutions to problems that would solve themselves over time. The heart of all of this country's racial problem have been created by the acknowledgement that there is a difference between the races, or that such a thing as race even exists.
None of your BS matters anyhow, because in 21st century America a business that attempted to return to Jim Crow would get killed, and soon be out of business. As I have said before, Freedom is always the answer, now you may go and find a real job that adds to the productive capacity of this country instead of being a professional crybaby creating misery for your own profit.
“The 5th and 14th Amendments clearly state a right to private property. The Declaration of independence clearly statesm [sic] that governments are instituted amoungst men for the protection of property amoungst other things.”
The Declaration of Independence does not saying that governments are instituted among men for the protection of property. It says that governments are constituted to secure the safety and happiness of its citizenry. Why didn’t you read the document before you commented on it? Does Ron Paul say this and you’re just parroting him?
Yes, the fifth and fourteenth amendments talk about property, but they don’t use the language of rights and, moreover, even if we assume right is implied, this right is clearly not absolute, as the amendment says that due process can deprive a person property. Furthermore, the amendments say nothing about property owners having unlimited rights to do whatever they wish with their property, it only talks about the process through which property owners may be deprived of their property. You act as if I have the right to harm other people with my property. If that were true, I could shoot people as long as it was with my gun. Your position is absurd. Stopping white property owners from depriving black people the freedom to access their facilities is not a deprivation of property for the white owner, but rather is preventing white property owners from harming black individuals.
So, I will ask you again, where is the right of white property owners to discriminate against black people? It’s not in the Declaration or the Constitution. Where is it, hahajohnnyb? Can you answer that question, or am I going to get another screed filled with ignorance and irrelevancy?
“A very basic property right is the right to exclusion. Like you home, your car or you clothes, you have a very implict [sic] right to exclude others from using your property.”
First, exclusivity is not a right. It’s custom. Moreover, exclusivity is not absolute. For example, if I am freezing and starving to death, and you’re not home, I can break into your house and use your heat and eat your food. The crimes of breaking and entering and burglary are negated because of duress and necessity justifications. Second, there is a fundamental difference between personal property and capital used for public accommodations. So your examples are irrelevant. We aren’t talking about personal property. We’re talking about capital used for public accommodations.
“The 9th amendment states that enumerating certain rights does not mean that other rights do not exist. Since the right to private property has been mentioned before and after the 9th amendment it only rational to assume that property right were then, and still are protected, including the right to exclude.”
This amendment was written to assure the people that rights granted by their individual state governments would not be negated by the rights enumerated by the Constitution. However, no state has the right to deprive a citizen of the United States, and since a white property owner refusing to serve a black person in his place of public accommodation is depriving that black person of his rights to life, liberty, and/or happiness, any state that allowed such a thing is in violation of the Constitution. This was made explicit in the fourteenth amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The fourteenth amendment incorporates all the states into the federal Constitution. No state can deprive you of your rights as a citizen of the United States.
“Since people have a right to exclude, and also have an absolute right to their own minds, their own opinions and the right to express and act on those thoughts and opinions as well as express those opinions, its only rational to assume that the rights outline in the 1st Amendment would be protected while a person is exercising their [sic] property rights.” This doesn’t follow at all. The freedom to speech, religion, and assembly have nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination based on race. I know you read this in a Ron Paul speech, but you have to understand that Paul doesn’t make a lot of sense a lot of the time. I will show you why his argument is irrelevant in a moment.
“The Federal Government has no authority to regulate commerce inside of a state, only the power to regulate commerce amongst the various States. No act of Congress has to power to undermine the rights of the private property owner.” Prove it. Show me in the Constitution where it says that the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce. Show me in the Constitution where is says that no act of Congress can undermine the rights of the private property owner. It’s not there. It’s not even implied.
“I do not want to live in a nation where we have thought crimes or thought criminals.” Here’s where Paul’s argument utterly fails. These claims about “thought police” are entirely irrelevant. Discrimination doesn’t depend on what you think, hahajohnnyb, it depends on what you do. You can hate people in your mind all you want. We don’t know what goes on in there. What you can’t do as a white person is deny black people of the basic organic rights.
You say that members of specific races, women, homosexuals, and the disabled are “appointed victims.” So there were and are no such thing as slavery, segregation, patriarchy, and the like. These things are pure inventions of the mind? Don’t be ridiculous. Groups of people – which must exist for you since you assume their existence in everything you say – are not victims because I imagine them to be. Blacks are objectively victims of white supremacy. And you believe that white property owners have the right to continue to victimize them. The problem for you isn’t that racism exists or doesn’t exist, but that society is not as racist as it used to be!
“Given that a black man is about to become the next president of the United States, its kinda nutty to think that racism still exists in the United States.” Given that black people substantially trail white people in every significant social category, it’s not “kinda nutty” but really nutty to think that racism no longer exists in the United States. People who deny racism in America are like those neonazis who deny the Holocaust. They are not only wrong, but they are racist.
“Freedom is always the answer….” True, but not the false freedom of the tyranny of capital that you advocate; rather the answer is found in real freedom that puts individual life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness before property and material gain. Any society that sacrifices the organic rights identified by Jefferson to the pursuit of material gain is not a free society.
I will continue to use my alcohol example until you show me why it's a poor example:
I understand that people have the right to drink alcohol. I DO NOT advocate it.
I understand that people have the right to be racist. I DO NOT advocate it.
If acknowledging the right to be racist makes me racist, then am I also in favor of recreational drugs, like alcohol, because I acknowledge that it's a right? No.
On this business about harming people, you misrepresent my argument...You can harm persons with their consent as long as there is no law forbidding it.
For the second time, I AM NOT arguing legality here. I am arguing ETHICS. There IS a difference. Right vs. wrong IS NOT legal vs. illegal.
If by "right" you mean "legal," then there is no point in the furthering of this discussion.
It's not a matter of what suits my argument better; it's a matter of what the experts who have studied the matter know about racism. If you're curious about definitions I use, read more of my blog.
And that's fine, but please acknowledge that you're arguing racism from a non-standard definition.
What I'm hearing from you is "anything that allows racism is racist." That's fine to think, but that's not what I believe. That's equivalent to saying that someone that allows someone to murder someone else is a murderer. Allowing murder and murdering are two different things. Allowing racism and being racist are two different things.
Please trust that I do not find myself to be racist by any means. I will not be friends with any persons that are racist, nor would I purchase goods or services from any companies I know to be racist.
I think that racism is stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. But if someone wants to be stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, then I think that it's their right to be stupid.
"If acknowledging the right to be racist makes me racist, then am I also in favor of recreational drugs, like alcohol, because I acknowledge that it's a right? No."
You're mixing apples and oranges. If you believe the government cannot legitimately ban or restrict drug use, then it's likely because you believe in personal liberty, which is the right of a person to do with her body as she will as long as her actions do not harm or significantly restrict the personal liberty of others. The rights to liberty and happiness can be construed to include recreational drug use. In my view, this is the case, which is why I oppose all drug laws: I believe they violate personal liberty. Whether I do or do not use drugs - along with a range of other things - is a personal decision covered by personal liberty. I really don't believe I have a say-so in what does not harm others. Just because I don't do drugs doesn't mean I think people don't have a right to personal liberty. I disagree that the state has the right to harm the personal liberty of some for the sake of the desires of others who seek to limit personal choices that are not significantly harmful to them.
Racism is not something I choose to do to myself. Racism is something I do that is harmful to others. Drug use is a personal choice that, as long as it does not harm others, is (in my view) protected under the right of personal liberty. Racism, in contrast, is discrimination based on race under conditions of asymmetrical group power that harms others. Discrimination is action, not belief, and it is unwanted interpersonal action. My personal liberty stops, Anon, where it harms another person's personal liberty. I disagree that the state has the right to harm the personal liberty of black Americans for the sake of the desires of white property owners.
"For the second time, I AM NOT arguing legality here. I am arguing ETHICS. There IS a difference. Right vs. wrong IS NOT legal vs. illegal." I ignored this the first time because it's an unnecessary distinction in this sense: I never assumed nor claimed otherwise. The point is that if you advocate a right to discriminate against black people, then you can't turn around and claim that you oppose discriminating against black people. You have a problem on both ethical and legal grounds.
"please acknowledge that you're arguing racism from a non-standard definition." Not at all. The definitions I use are standard. As I explained, scientists do not use dictionary definitions because such definitions are not authored by experts. They are, therefore, nonstandard from a scientific point of view. What dictionary definitions are are popular definitions, which have limited bearing on the objective reality under discussion. In any case, as I already demonstrated, definition number two of the dictionary definition you supplied refute your argument. If you want to claim this as the definitive source, then you have to reject one of your premises.
"What I'm hearing from you is 'anything that allows racism is racist.' That's fine to think, but that's not what I believe." Look, you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it right. The statement "anything that allows racism is racist" is a simple but nonetheless true construction. If you allow a person to murder another person, you are complicit in the crime of murder. By "allow" we mean that you could have stopped it but didn't. If you want to rationalize this as "he had a right to kill him," go ahead, but it doesn't change your responsibility that exists on ethical grounds and frequently in the law (where the law follows ethics). You are responsible for that which is in your ability to control. Ending racism is in your control, so either failing to act to end racism or openly advocating racism makes you a racist. This is why anybody who advocates for a right to be racist or sexist is properly grouped with those who perpetrate racism and sexism. It's an ethical and moral point.
"Please trust that I do not find myself to be racist by any means. I will not be friends with any persons that are racist, nor would I purchase goods or services from any companies I know to be racist." Fine. But if you advocate a right for white property owners to discriminate against black patrons, you are a racist. Not being friends with them or purchasing goods and services from them is irrelevant (as irrelevant as claiming that you are no racist because you have black friends). Only when you reject the false right of whites to discriminate against blacks and openly oppose such racist claims can you claim to be anti-racist.
"I think that racism is stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. But if someone wants to be stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, then I think that it's their right to be stupid." One is allowed to be stupid if and only if their stupidity does not harm others, Anon. Once somebody's stupidity harms others, that person's stupidity is properly restricted by society. Racism isn't about what you hold in your head and keep to yourself. Racism doesn't even require racist thinking. Racism is about actions that harm other people on the basis of race in the context of asymmetrical group power. You have no right to harm other people without a rational reason. Indeed, society has a responsibility to act to stop you from harming other people.
Andrew, your problem is that you either do not understand private property rights, or are simply unwilling to acknowledge them. Lets take your example, of you claim that if you are cold and starving you have the right to break into my house and use my heat and eat my food. Now, under the laws of the State of Texas, if I catch you in my house using my heat and eating my food, I have every right to blow your head off, and no court in the State would try me for it either.
Your right to live do not supercede my property rights, and either as a renter or a property owner, I have the right to defend my property with lethal force, even against law enforcement officers. Case in point, no Branch Davidian was convicted of murder as a result of the Waco standoff, and everyone of them is free today.
I have no right to use someone elses property, and no one has a right to use my property. Say for example, I have to take a crap real bad, and a local store has a toilet availible for customers. Even though those toilets are public toilets, the business is under no obligation to allow me to use those toilets even though my need is real and immediate. Hopefully they would allow me to use their toilets out of common courtesy but they are not required to do so.
By using your logic, looting is a natural right in instances like Hurricane Katrina or the LA Riots, because the people had a need, and that need superceded the rights of the property owners.
As I have said before, one of the most fundamental aspects of property rights is the right to exclusion. The property owner has the exclusive right to possess the property, and a reasonable expectation that in his abscence, his right to possess and control the property will be respected.
Saying that property owners have the right to exclusive use and enjoyment of a property, unless they are white and the other person happens to be black, completely undermines the common law principle of property rights and individual ownership.
Superficially, making such a demand, that white owners should not exclude a black customer make sense, but the trouble is that it sets a legal precedent where-by all the other rights of the property owner can be undermined based on the false premise that "the needs of the many outwiegh the rights of the few." This logic is socialist, and if taken to extremes would result in full fledged communism.
Under English Common Law the rights and priviledges of a property owner were well understood and resepected. Our system of common law evolved out of English Common law, and it was this same English Common Law which was in use at the time of the Declaration of Independence, which recognized that all men have rights, and all rights are equal under the law. Although common law rights are not mentioned in the Declaration, the Declaration also suggests that there are more rights than just Life, Liberty and Happiness. Since all rights are equal, and no one has special rights, then Blacks have no greater rights than white property owners. All Property Owners have the right to exclude anyone whom they choose, undermining this right would essentially eliminate property rights as we understand them.
hahajohnnyb, do you believe that you have the right to arbitarily harm other people with your property?
If you answer "yes," then you stand in a position entirely contrary to morality and law. Under such a view, I can arbitarily shoot you to death as long as it's my gun that I use to shoot you. No sane person holds such a view. If you believe this, then you haven't the faintest understanding of ethical, moral, and legal notions of property.
If you answer "no," then you need to explain to to us why white property owners should enjoy a special right - what is really a privilege - to restrict the liberty of black people. You cannot appeal to an absolute right to use property in any manner you choose, since no such absolute right exists. So what is your reason for claiming such a right?
It depends. If someone enters my property I have every right to kill them. Do I have the right to run people over simply because I own a car? No of course not! But that does not mean that I am obligated to give them a ride either.
No one has a right to use someone else's property, so no damage is done by the property owner exercising their exclusive property rights. One person's need does not usurp another person's rights. Just like a store is free to deny me access to their restrooms when I got to go, their rights are superior to my needs.
Just like I have the right to kill you if you break into my house, my right to exclusive use of my property are superior to your right to live.
Do property rights discriminate based on race? Are all rights protected regardless of race? If all property rights are protected regardless the race of the property owner, then you distinction between white and black is irrelevant. If property owner have the exclusive right to control their property and access to their property. Then race is a non issue concerning property owners rights. Saying that white property owners rights are limited by their thinking of the issue of race while exercising their right to exclusion amounts to making exclusively white property owners subject to essentially a thought crime. This thought crime would be exclusive to the white race, which would mean that white people are not entitled to equal protection under the law.
You need to find a way to word your argument so that its not race specific and can apply to everyone equally without singling a people based on this notion of group affliation. Some thing like...
"All property Owners operating a business open to the public must give equal consideration to all people."
"If someone enters my property I have every right to kill them." You're unfamiliar with criminal law. In general, within reason, you can justify the use of deadly force in defense of your person or other innocent persons. However, the use of deadly force in the protection of property is generally not allowed. Moreover, whatever the specific law (and some states are rather primitive on this score, such as the backwards states of Texas), it is immoral to use deadly force against a person if the threat of death or injury is absent. It is a basic position in common law and in most statutes that human life outweighs material objects.
"Do I have the right to run people over simply because I own a car? No of course not! But that does not mean that I am obligated to give them a ride either." Black people eating in a white person's restaurant is not analogous to giving people a ride in your car. However, if a person is sick or injured and you are the only one with a car who can get that person to a hospital and you refuse to transport, you are morally and potentially legally responsible for any harm that comes to that person. You can leave a man to die because you don't want blood in your car. You have obligations. Moreover, if you refuse to help, I can, and that includes commandeering your car.
"No one has a right to use someone else's property." Wrong. As I already noted, under duress, I can use your property. If you refuse to let me use your property under conditions necessity, you are morally responsible and potentially legally liable for the harm that comes to me as a result of your refusal. Second, if you run a business in the sector of public accommodations, you cannot stop me from using your property based on the color of my skin. To do so would be to violate my personal liberty and my civil rights, which, in this case, have priority over your wishes. Like I said, there is no absolute right to do whatever you want with your property.
"Just like a store is free to deny me access to their restrooms when I got to go, their rights are superior to my needs." Wrong again. A store owner is not free to deny you access to his restrooms based on skin color. Any store that does that is practicing racial discrimination. Anybody who asserts a right of white store owners to racially discriminate is advancing a racist position.
"Just like I have the right to kill you if you break into my house, my right to exclusive use of my property are superior to your right to live." A reasonable justification for the use of deadly force in the instance of home invasion is not an act in defense of property, but in defense of person. I am a firm believer in the use of deadly force in the protection of my person or innocents, and such a justification generally negates mens rea.
"Do property rights discriminate based on race? Are all rights protected regardless of race? If all property rights are protected regardless the race of the property owner, then you distinction between white and black is irrelevant." You are arguing for a right for white people to discriminate against black people. This means that you want the state to recognize and facilitate the ability of white people to restrict the liberty of black people. By definition, it follows that rights are protected with regards to race.
"If property owner have the exclusive right to control their property and access to their property. Then race is a non issue concerning property owners rights." First, property owners have no such exclusive right. You are completely wrong about that, as I have demonstrated logically and empirically. Second, race is clearly the issue when you are arguing for a right of white property owners to discriminate against black patrons.
"Saying that white property owners rights are limited by their thinking of the issue of race while exercising their right to exclusion amounts to making exclusively white property owners subject to essentially a thought crime." Again, this has nothing to with thought crimes or thought. It has to do with racist action. We aren't talking about white property owners thinking about black people; we're talking about white property owners discriminating against black people. Who cares what white people are thinking? The law doesn't control what people think. The law controls what people do.
Why do you keep using arguments that I have already demolished?
"This thought crime would be exclusive to the white race, which would mean that white people are not entitled to equal protection under the law." We are talking about behavior, not thoughts. Stopping discrimination is not about thought crimes. Stopping discrimination is about stopping action.
"All property Owners operating a business open to the public must give equal consideration to all people." Is that not the way the law is written, hahajohnnyb? But that's not your argument. You argument is that white property owners ought to have the right to discriminate against black people. You have yet to present an argument in defense of your racist position. I am still waiting.
Here's the relevant question: Why should white property owners have a special right to restrict the liberty of black persons?
You think that you are winning? What? With your logic that says somehow refusing service in a restuarant is like stabbing someone in the heart then not giving him a ride in your car? Jesus man, you are out of your mind!
First there is no such statute or case law that obliges you to help an injured person. In fact you can be sued if you help someone and they end up getting fucked up as a result of your help. Say for example, you see someone get hit by car, then pick that person up and drive them to the hospital. Little did you know that they had suffered a neck injury and due to your help is now a quadrapalegic.
Further you are under no legal obligation to surrender your vehicle, or transport a person for any reason, and you are damned sure not expected to surrender your property for any reason. The Constitution is damned sure clear on the fact, that private property may not be taken without compensation.
Transporting an injured person only exposes you personally to litigation, while leaving you entirely liable for whatever damage that injured person might cause to your property. Such as blood in your car.
Let me ask you a question, Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party? I ask this because all of your counter arguments sound like a bunch of Marxist jibberish to me. And why are you arguing about a non-issue? Is there any place in America, currently to your knowledge, that is actively discriminating against blacks?
Why are you so intent to undermine the property rights of American business owners under the guise of this non-issue? The 1960s are long over and forgotten. Everyone who was an adult in the '60s is now old, and either retired, about to retire or dead.
A business who practices racial discrimination would soon be put out of business, because their competitors could easily out compete them for both employees and customers. Not to mention the community backlash against them.
Here's a novel idea, lets just protect property rights, and let the market decide! You should quit being a commie. Central planning and commie-ism always fail.
Wanna see what the world could be like, if people did not have you idiot social planners shoving a bunch of forced integration socialist anti-freedom garbage down their throuts, go to Brazil! Nearly the exact same racial history of the US, and you do not see any of the bullshit down there.
All commie agitators like you do is piss people off, creating resentments out of thin air. People like you are merchants of misery, and are completely useless in a free society. All you want to do is erode personal liberty, while stoking the flames of discourse. America does not need a social manager anymore than we need an economic manager.
Everything people like you only makes things worse! Take busing for example. Idiots like you back in the '70s decide to take black communities apart and ship poor black kids into the wealthiest sections of town. Jesus talk about a way to stoke resentment, and re-enforce the notion of black inferiority, while destroying their communities by dividing them.
Its the 21st century! Let's leave the past where it belongs, in the past.
And quit being a commie!
You didn't address most of the points where I shot your arguments down, and that leaves most of your response in the dust. But I have a few additional points.
"The Constitution is damned sure clear on the fact, that private property may not be taken without compensation." Again, you're wrong. Evidently you don't know about asset forfeiture. The state can take your property as long as due process rules are followed. Nobody has an absolute right to property.
"Let me ask you a question, Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?" I will answer the question if and when you can provide this blog with a cogent argument explaining why white property owners should have a special right to discriminate against black people.
"Is there any place in America, currently to your knowledge, that is actively discriminating against blacks?" Racists deny that blacks suffer discrimination in America. Blacks trail whites in every significant social category. Blacks face systematic discrimination in employment, housing, and the criminal justice system. The very failure of the state to move to end racial discrimination in America is itself a feature of the racism that pervades this country at all levels. And you're asking for a right to return to even more discrimination.
"Why are you so intent to undermine the property rights of American business owners under the guise of this non-issue?" My issue has to do with people who use property to curtail the liberty of citizens of the United States. If you find a way to own and use property in a manner that is non-harmful to others and does not exploit people, then I have no problem with you. I stand up for the principle that human beings are more important that material objects. That's because I am a libertarian. It's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for me. These are my core principles.
The rest of your comments are just right-wing lunatic ranting. Please spare us the John Birch Society drivel. That's so 1950s.
Assuming that you are merely a useless idiot and not a truly evil person, I am going to try and explain this to you Andrew. Large populations can be controlled and manipulated by creating divisions amongst the people. This is the only way that true evil is allowed to thrive, because people always feel as though they personally are under attack, so they feel as though they must support the lesser of evils to survive.
We are all one people, but the powers that be wish to control us, not because they are interested in our well being but because they are interested in power. One key tool that they use is demographics like the ones that you have cited. "Oh, black people must be repressed because they are not doing as well statistically as white people." This serves several key functions. First, it serves as a point to create envy and a feeling of inferiority amongst black people, while providing them a scape goat, "evil whitey." This serves as a basis for racial resentment. Then it serves several points for a white audience, some white people will agree with you and assume that there must be some sort of racial discrimination going on and feed their white guilt. Some other white people will draw the conclusion that, because blacks are not doing as well as whites then it must be true that blacks really are inferior, in this second group most likely, they will also draw the corollary that socialists want to take away what little they have and redistribute it to black people, because of the resentments of black people and the white guilt of the first group. In their minds they go into self preservation mode, they become scared for their own rights and their own property, and develop a resentment towards blacks.
The net result is that both sides appeal to the government for redress, which further empowers politicians and other manipulators to get the people mobilized against each other. Divide and conquer.
Certainly, you know that the white power retards have no real power. The only power that they have is the power to destroy, and even that power must be limited or the motivation to commit acts of violence by the white community on the black community is very small, because white on black crime is extremely small.
Now, lets get into the real issues that have been hurting black communities. Like the banks refusing loans for property improvements in black districts of cities. The CIA created crack epidemic in inner cities, the mandatory minimums for crack cocaine in excess of powder cocaine. Drug laws in general. Prison. And AIDS.
The elite has been after the blacks ever since they came over here. For reasons that I do not understand, the elite actually does want to kill black people, and keep the black man down. Why? I do not know. Its a well known fact that the elite controls the banking cartels and the CIA. The black community in general has been repressed by the banks refusal to grant loans in inner cities. This naturally created an environment of depression and hopelessness. Then the CIA needing Money to fuel Iran/Contra introduces crack cocaine into poor urban areas, after creating black militant groups, which naturally lead to the creation of street gangs. This lifestyle was glamorized by the culture makers, to the horror of suburbanites when their children caught on top it. This, of course, coupled with the urban crime spike caused by the gangs and the CIAs crack business caused a public outcry to do something, so they came up with these mandatory minimums.
Now, before the crack and the gangs, the Government invented a nasty little Virus known as HIV. Under the guise of free vaccinations or health care screening, the government infected male homosexuals in major urban areas, and poor black people in Africa and on the Island of Haiti.
Due to the enhanced sentences for crack, other drugs, and the inability of the poor to afford a good lawyer, plus a bias in the legal system. More and more blacks started going to prison, naturally this would hurt their earning potential for the rest of their lives, but it also split black families and caused a shortage of black males in their communities. This alone would be bad, but they were dealt a double whammy given the fact of homosexuality in the prison system was and is spreading HIV to more and more black men.
These black men get out of prison, then spread AIDS to their female partners on the outside completing an extremely destructive and tragic circle which leads to poverty and death.
Even, if you don't believe, the conspiratorial part of my explanation. You must admit that the basic facts are in place, with the banks, the drugs, AIDS and Prison. No ordinary person has control of any of these things.
Your theory of systematic racism amongst the white community that conspires to keep the black man down can be disproved by the fact that there are many successful black people in every occupation under the sun, and some mega successful politicians and media moguls, which exist purely by the favor of the masses of the people both white and black.
Please quit playing into the elite's divisive game of pitting people against each other. We are all facing the same dangers, the same trials and tribulations as a people. Progressively, our freedoms and our wealth are being eroding away, and we will all go down together.
I'm going to try to keep my writing as concise as possible, as I've realized that I'm writing quite a bit and I don't want to drown out my main points.
It'll take a bit more for you to convince me that that "belief of someone's right to" and "belief of" are the same thing.
It seems to me that you have this concept that people are duty-bound to doing certain things simply by being human.
For example, based on your ideals, I have no right to turn someone away from my store because of their race. This implies that I have a duty to provide my services or goods to people regardless of race. Would you agree?
If yes, would I have the right to turn someone away because of:
- Body size
- Body weight
- Hair color
- Lack of body parts
- Necessity of tools to assist physical movement (wheelchairs, crutches, etc.)
- My opinion of their beauty/ugliness
?
We aren't talking about duty, Anon. We're talking about whether white property owners have the right to discriminate against black people. As we have established, there is no right of white property owners to do so.
Furthermore, racial discrimination is against the law, as it should be, because it violates black persons' rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. We can't let white property owners trample on the rights of black Americans, Anon. Arguing that white property owners should be able to do so is advocating racism (even if one doesn't believe or know that they are advocating such a thing). Indeed, advocacy for whites being able to discriminate against blacks is the epitome of racism.
You list several physical characteristics and wonder whether a property owner could turn people away on these bases. Does the property owner have a rational reason for turning people away for, say, body size? Some of these issues haven't been resolved. Does an airliner discriminate against fat people by charging them for two seats? It depends on whether you believe that people choose to be fat. If being fat is a consequence of the fat person's behavior, the answer is that it's probably not discrimination. Being black isn't a behavior, but rather a fixed social category or status.
Crucially, the real world analogy to race is included in your list, namely persons with disabilities. Able-bodied property owners do not have the right to discriminate against disabled persons. This is because persons with disabilities are hampered in their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by able-bodied property owners. This constitutes another form of discrimination.
If you claim there the right of property owners to discriminate against the disabled, then you are on the side of the discriminators, since such a "right" is not a right at all but a privilege. We don't have a standard name for this form of discrimination like we do for racism, but it's discrimination of the same species. It's wrong, and the law is finally catching up with the morality of the matter.
On this business about whether supporting a right to be racist is the same thing as being racist, you're trying to import an argument form into your position that doesn't fit. The form you are trying to import is best represented by the argument in favor of free speech rights - to wit, just because I defend the right of racists to speak,
I am not necessarily racist. For example, I defend the right of hahajohnnyb to argue that white people should be able to discriminate against black people, and defending that right does not mean I agree with him. Of course, his right to make such arguments does not make him ant-racist. However, your claim that your support for the right of white property owners to be able to restrict the freedom of black persons is not support for property owners restricting the freedom of black persons does not fit in an argument that advocacy for a right is neutral with respect to its content. You are arguing for an exemption from observing basic civil and human rights. That's not a right but a privilege.
How ironic it is that hahajohnny tries to claim that I am pitting groups in society against one another when he is the one advocating a special "right" for white property owners to discriminate against black people in employment and services.
The man doesn't get it to such an extent that he steps on himself.
"As we have established, there is no right of white property owners to do so......Furthermore, racial discrimination is against the law,"
No. We have established that there is no LEGAL right of white property owners to racially discriminate; Not that there is no ETHICAL right. For the 10th time, I don't care about the law because legal vs. illegal is not right vs. wrong.
"Indeed, advocacy for whites being able to discriminate against blacks is the epitome of racism."
I want to see what you think about this:
- I am not specifically advocating racism, rather I am advocating the right for one to make decisions for themselves, so long as they do not detract from the freedom of others.
- Because I believe in this right, I believe that people have a right to racism actions, so long as they do not detract from the freedom of other.
Therefore, I am racist.
- YOU are not specifically advocating racism, rather you are advocating the right for one to say whatever they want about someone.
- Because you believe in this right, you believe that people have a right to racist speech.
Therefore, you are racist.
Since I'm sure you do, please explain to me why you disagree with this. I think I know why, but I want you to actually say it so that I can respond to that.
Andrew you are splitting hairs over a non-issue, while ignoring the real problems which are destroying our black brothers and sisters. Your entire point in citing statistics to show that white society is racially biggoted was to incite a racist reaction in both whites and blacks.
Look at the real issues affecting blacks and its not that some redneck laundromat won't wash black folks clothes. The real issues facing black folks are entirely the result of government action against them, as well as being ignored by the banking establishment.
The war on drugs has been extremely harsh on the black community, far worse than the action of any handful of white supremacists. The war on drugs has breed crime in their neighborhoods, which has resulted in long prison sentences for black men, which has lead to an increase in single motherhood, and an increase in the AIDS rate. It also provides an excuse for bankers failing to invest in black communities.
Then people like you come around and tell black people that they are being held down by racist white trash who have no power, and are mostly racist as a defense mechanism because it seems to them like people are going to take away what little they have because they are the ones being blamed. Yet again another tragic circle. This serves to reinforce and justify anti-white racism amongst blacks, and fuels anti-black racism amongst lower class whites. It plays into people's natural bias and tribal tendancies to defend their own kind, and oppose the "others".
Its the exact same mentality that exists on a prison yard, for the exact same reasons.
You want to crusade to help the black folks, fine! More power to you! But understand that the problems that the black community is now facing is not the threat of White Supremacists, but the fact that the system is stacked against them.
One of the most important things that needs to be addressed is drug law reform. We have more people in prison now than any other country in the World including China. This is a direct result of the war on drugs. A majority of the people behind bars are black men for various drug and gand related offenses. The very nature of contraband gives rise to criminal enterprizes to support the black market, which gives rise to gangs and violence. The solution is incredibly simple, legalize drugs. Keep them as cheap as possible, this will take the profit motive out of distributing drugs, thus undermining the funding of illegal gangs. It will also decrease real crimes such as theft, because people will not have to steal to afford drugs.
Organizations like Narcotics Anonymous already exist and are self-funded, so there is no need to create an extensive government managed drug rehab network, but that is also a more practical option than jail.
This will drastically bring down the rate of incarcerated blacks, making for more duel parent homes, which will greatly improve their financial security.
Break up the big banking cartels. More competition will result in more money being invested in black communities, improving their living standards, providing jobs and hope for their communities.
Schools are the focal point of all communities, for some strange reason, the Dept. of Education mandated an insane forced integration program. The result in many cities was taking black kids out of their neighborhoods, and shipping across town into other neighborhoods. This destroyed the autonomy of their communities, and thrust these kids into an environment where they were less comfortable.
People like you want to manage society and individual behavior, instead of allowing people to just be themselves. Some white people are going to choose not to associate with blacks, some black people are going to choose not to associate with white, and thats OK. People are free to associate or ignore whomever they wish. Whats truly important is that we design our laws to defend the liberty of the individual and protect thier rights, including their right to free mind, and right to property.
That's partially why people like you Social Scientists are so freaking worthless, because their is no social problem that cannot be solved by doing absolutely nothing but protecting an individual's rights and liberty. Its really idiot proof, but here again we see people like you who think that they know how to run people's lives better than they know themselves, just like we saw in the slave days, Jim Crow Days, Affirmative action days, and drug law days. You people who want to do something are always wrong, and always end up screwing things up more so than if you had chosen to do nothing but insure that everyone had equality of rights, instead of economic equality.
“Your entire point in citing statistics to show that white society is racially biggoted [sic] was to incite a racist reaction in both whites and blacks.” No, my point in presenting the statistics was to show that US society is still a place where whites are systematically advantaged and blacks are systematically disadvantaged. That’s racism.
Of course the war on drugs is wrong. But what does that have to do with a white property owners having a special exemption to violate the rights of black people? We all know why your ranting: you lost the argument. Either you stay on topic or I stop accepting your comments in this thread.
Of course the banking industry discriminates against blacks and that is wrong, which is precisely my point in this discussion. You certainly can’t come back and complain about that because that’s what you want to happen. You want white–owned institutions to be able to discriminate against black folks. You’re on record as saying that even have a right to do that.
“Then people like you come around and tell black people that they are being held down by racist white trash who have no power.” Where are you getting this stuff? That’s not my argument. My argument is that the institutional and social structure of America is racist. We are talking about white property owners, not bigoted working class whites. As I have argued on this blog, the dumb fuck who calls black people “niggers” is hardly the problem. The problem is the racist capitalist system. That is how “the system is stacked against them,” hahajohnnyb, and you want it to be even more stacked against them by claiming a right for white property owners to discriminate against black people.
“People like you want to manage society and individual behavior, instead of allowing people to just be themselves.” People can’t be themselves under racism. Moreover, nobody should be allowed to be themselves if being themselves means restricting the rights of black people. The way to end racism is to change the way life happens in society. Not doing anything perpetuates the problem. The government had to act to bring an end to apartheid – a form of racial separation that you argue white people have a right to maintain – because white people weren’t going to do it unless they were forced to.
“Some white people are going to choose not to associate with blacks, some black people are going to choose not to associate with white.” Irrelevant. The relevant question is whether white people can use property to restrict the rights of black people. “People are free to associate or ignore whomever they wish.” Irrelevant. The relevant question is whether white people can use property to restrict the rights of black people.
“Whats [sic] truly important is that we design our laws to defend the liberty of the individual.” Exactly, and we do that by making sure that white property owners do not restrict the liberty of black individuals. You believe that white property owners have the right to restrict the individual liberty of African Americans.
If you can't stay on topic, I have no obligation to accept your comments. I don't play the red herring game.
I wrote, "As we have established, there is no right of white property owners to do so......Furthermore, racial discrimination is against the law." You write, “No. We have established that there is no LEGAL right of white property owners to racially discriminate; Not that there is no ETHICAL right. For the 10th time, I don't care about the law because legal vs. illegal is not right vs. wrong.” Actually, we have established that discrimination is ethically and morally wrong, and that’s plainly because it violates the organic rights of black persons. Just because it took all these years to form law that reflected the moral terrain of basic civil rights doesn’t mean that ethics are in question.
“I am not specifically advocating racism, rather I am advocating the right for one to make decisions for themselves, so long as they do not detract from the freedom of others. Because I believe in this right, I believe that people have a right to racism actions, so long as they do not detract from the freedom of other.” Illogical. Racist actions by definition harm the freedom of others. You will need to reformulate the argument. Later you claim that “YOU are not specifically advocating racism, rather you are advocating the right for one to say whatever they want about someone.” This doesn’t follow from the first part. In the first part you talked about racist action. Nobody has a right to do that. You are now talking about racist speech, which usually is not action (there are exceptions, though).
However, to reiterate my point, my belief in a basic right to free speech does not make me an advocate of the content of any speech. That would be an impossible position. Think about it: If because I believe in free speech, this made me an advocate for the content of any speech, then I would be an advocate for the content of all speech, which would include ideas that contradict each other.
I can see you’re still struggling with this one. I don’t know how else to help you understand it. You should work out some basic syllogisms and get back to me with questions.
Please answer two questions, if you wouldn't mind:
1. Where can I find a list of the organic rights of people?
2. How do racist actions harm a person's freedom?
The organic rights of the people are found in many place. One of the most famous places is in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Racist actions are inherently damaging to individual freedom. A simple example serves to demonstrate this. I am a black man and my family is going out to eat. I take them to a nice family restaurant, but the owner won't serve us. We can see that several white families are happily freely eating their dinners. We see no black families inside. We meet a black family in the parking lot who tell us that they, too, were refused service, and that they had talked to another black family who was refused service. My family has thus been denied the freedom to eat in a place of public accommodations and this makes us very unhappy. Not only is our freedom harmed but our civil rights have been violated. If this were in the 1950s in the South, even though the restaurant's owner was behaving unethically and immorally, we would have no recourse. Fortunately, today, because of civil rights laws, the owner of the store is breaking the law and he will suffer consequences for harming my family's freedom.
Here's a question for you: Could you really not think of that example on your own? It's the embodiment of the blog entry you're commenting on.
So, a couple things:
1. OK. Then where did people who existed prior to the creation of the Declaration of Independence find organic rights?
2. A restaurant is not a place of public accomodations. It is a place of private accomodations. Those that are accomodated are accomodated at the discretion of the owner of the restaurant. If making someone unhappy is harming them, then I'd be forced to bring up the free speech thing again, as speech can very well make someone unhappy. A moral issue could be argued, but, again, morality is not what I'm debating.Your example does not serve to explain how the restaurant harmed the family (besides hurting their feelings) by not letting them eat there.
Here's a question for you: Could you really not think of that example on your own? It's the embodiment of the blog entry you're commenting on.
Heh. Of course. I'm asking these questions so that you'll give me solid answers to which I can repsond. Otherwise, I'd be forced to assume your response to a question, which is not the most solid way of doing things, nor is it necessary, given that you can simply answer me when I ask, as opposed to a situation in which I did not actually expect an answer to a question (like writing a newspaper article or something). :)
"where did people who existed prior to the creation of the Declaration of Independence find organic rights?"
There have been previous declarations in different countries. The rights in the Declaration were widely recognized as basic before the Declaration was written. Jefferson didn't invent them. There are various theories of rights, Anon. My own view is that rights grow out of the necessary conditions of human existence. To survive, people must live together, and rights are a species of the basic rules that govern behavior.
"A restaurant is not a place of public accomodations. It is a place of private accomodations." No, public accommodations include places of care providers (medical centers, and so forth), dining, education, lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, stores, transportation, etc. It is illegal to discriminate against black people in any of these places because it violates their civil rights.
"There are various theories of rights, Anon. My own view is that rights grow out of the necessary conditions of human existence. To survive, people must live together, and rights are a species of the basic rules that govern behavior."
I think I agree, for the most part. What this really comes down to is my belief in self-ownership. In a very general way (I can get more specific, should you request it), to force someone to act a certain way is to remove certain freedoms that they have. You own yourself, which means that you can do whatever you want to yourself, as long as your actions do not remove any ownership of others to themselves. To remove ownership is to remove freedom. To remove freedom is to harm. The only time it is OK to remove someone's freedoms is when they have removed yours first. As dumb as I may think racism is, I cannot see how it removes freedoms from the person(s) that were the subject of that racist action.
Taking your restaurant example - I do not see how refusing to allow someone to enter your property removes their freedoms (harms them).
Now, if you find fault in any part of this, please question it. :)
"What this really comes down to is my belief in self-ownership. In a very general way (I can get more specific, should you request it), to force someone to act a certain way is to remove certain freedoms that they have."
To restrict a person from access to public accommodations on the grounds that they are a black person is to violates that person's civil rights without rational justification. Violating a person's civil rights is restricting their personal freedom. This is a simple matter of definition and fact, Anon. This is not in dispute. What's being disputed here is whether white property owners should have the privilege of violating the civil rights of black persons. The moral, ethical, and legal framework of our society says no. You and hahajohnnyb say yes.
I believe in personal ownership, as well, Anon. It's central to my libertarian point of view (which is to be distinguished from the pseudo-libertarianism of Paul, Rand, and other liberal extremists). Libertarians believe that certain individual actions are properly restricted when they curtail the personal liberty of other persons. Personal liberty does not exist in a vacuum. Since the wellspring of freedom is ownership in self, ownership in property must not be elevated over personal liberty; believing otherwise would allow the (under capitalism typically appropriated) product of human action to limit individual freedom. We would become slaves to the fruits of our labors. Societies that put property before persons are exceptional in history and profoundly contrary to basic civil liberties and rights. People come first, Anon, not property. I find very disturbing this advocacy of the tyranny of property over persons. Such a view is fundamentally opposed to individual liberty.
"To remove ownership is to remove freedom." Freedom is not absolute, Anon. There are justifiable reasons for removing ownership, especially where removing ownership increases personal liberty. You are not allowed to use your property to harm other people or restrict their freedom without justification. This is fundamental to the moral, ethical, and legal foundation of Western civilization. It true throughout the world and down through history. The problem is, as I noted above, a few societies have not recognized in law what is morally and ethically imperative. (Indeed, if the morality and ethics of the matter were realized fully in law, everybody would access to the means of production.)
"As dumb as I may think racism is, I cannot see how it removes freedoms from the person(s) that were the subject of that racist action." Again, if I tell you that you cannot eat in a place of public accommodations, then I am restricting your freedom. Freedom is a meaningless concept if, when I stop you from doing something because I own property, I am not restricting your freedom. There must be a rational justification for restricting freedom in any specific instance. If I keep you out of my restaurant because you drunk and obnoxious then I have a legitimate reason to restrict your freedom. On the other hand, limiting a black persons freedom because he is black is not a rational justification. Thus the property owner's freedom to use his property in a particular manner is restricted because it violates a more fundamental freedom, namely the civil rights of black people.
Suppose I own a health care service. It is a place of public accommodations. I own it in a small town where the next health care facility is 200 miles away. A black man has been seriously injured and he needs the services of my health care facility in order to live. I deny him treatment in my facility because he is black and he dies. I have denied him the most fundamental aspect of individual liberty: his right to life. Are you really going to argue that I did not restrict his personal freedom, Anon?
I didn't read this whole thing and I only have a small thing to add:
According to Merriam-Webster, liberty is "the quality or state of being free... the power to do as one pleases... freedom from physical restraint... freedom from arbitrary or despotic control... the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges... the power of choice...."
According to the OP this only applies to blacks. Blacks are free to force whites into company with them preventing any freedom of association for said whites. OP = racist
According to Merriam Webster:
"Racism"
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
I don't see a "3" there but OP wants us believe the following:
3 : the practice of supporting others' freedom of association
Sorry OP - you are a racist and I am not hearing arguments to the contrary because your article makes it all too clear. Racist.
Blacks have freedom to associate (even with those who do not want their company) but whites do not.
One more quick one:
Does this mean blacks don't have the right to bar the KKK from burning crosses on their property? Or the KKK can stay provided they are shopping and eating dinner with their family?
"According to Merriam-Webster, liberty is 'the quality or state of being free... the power to do as one pleases... freedom from physical restraint... freedom from arbitrary or despotic control... the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges... the power of choice....'"
White property owners refusing to serve black Americans in a place of public accommodations is covered in these definitions. Blacks are denied the power of choice, the power to do as they please, and so forth. So this was a useful contribution for those who like Merriam-Webster.
"According to the OP this only applies to blacks." Ron Paul argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which restricted the ability of white property owners to discriminate against black Americans, was wrong because it violated the rights of white property owners to do with their property as they wished. It's his argument, justindt, not mine.
"Blacks are free to force whites into company with them preventing any freedom of association for said whites." This is unclear. You need to clarify.
We already went through the Merriam-Webster definition of racism and found that, since ignores the question of power, it is incomplete.
Concerning freedom of association, people have the right to associate with whom they wish. If a white man does not want to associate with black people, he doesn't have to. If a white restaurant owner doesn't want to be near black people, then he should find another gig.
"Blacks have freedom to associate (even with those who do not want their company) but whites do not." Blacks have a civil right to be free from discrimination in places of public accommodation. Whites can choose to associate with blacks or not.
"Does this mean blacks don't have the right to bar the KKK from burning crosses on their property?"
First, the KKK doesn't burn crosses, they light them.
Second, you can't light a cross in anybody's front yard without permission, and even then city ordinances may ban it. Furthermore, the KKK doesn't have the right to light a cross in a Denny's parking lot and the owners of Denny's can call the police and have the cross and the KKK removed. This is irrelevant to the present discussion.
"Or the KKK can stay provided they are shopping and eating dinner with their family?" The KKK can shop at any store and eat at any restaurant. In my hometown of Murfreesboro Tennessee, I see the Klan taking advantage of places of public accommodation all the time. What's your point?
Dang - now I got sucked in...
This is for all the people that don't know what the Constitution is. This may have been stated already but the Constitution is an abridgment of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S rights, not private citizens.
In fact, the tenth amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The power to use a computer is not delegated to the UNITED STATES... that belongs to the people. The power to wear sunglasses, not granted to the UNITED STATES... that belongs to the people. The power to be racist is not granted to the UNITED STATES... again, that belongs to the people.
"This is for all the people that don't know what the Constitution is. This may have been stated already but the Constitution is an abridgment of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S rights, not private citizens."
The Bill of Rights clarifies the relationship between the citizen, state governments, and the federal government, so you're a little off, but thanks for trying to explain it.
"The power to use a computer is not delegated to the UNITED STATES... that belongs to the people. The power to wear sunglasses, not granted to the UNITED STATES... that belongs to the people. The power to be racist is not granted to the UNITED STATES... again, that belongs to the people"
With respect to computers and sunglasses, the government uses computers and politicians wear sunglasses. I'm not sure the relevance this. I don't know if there is a Constitutional right to wear sunglasses, if that's what you're trying to get at. I know many states have banned window tinting in cars and I know of no successful Constitutional challenge.
With respect to racism, racism is a state of affairs and a practice that violates the civil rights of black Americans and other oppressed races. The government is racist in sofar as it legislates or fails to eliminate racism.
This is gonna be a long one.
"Are you really going to argue that I did not restrict his personal freedom, Anon?"
Yes, I am. You know why? Because what you're trying to say that that not helping is hurting, which is not true. If it were true, then you are hurting the homeless by typing on your blog instead of helping them find work or shelter. You are hurting the starving children by choosing to purchase those sunglasses you wear in your picture instead of donating money to them for food.
"Concerning freedom of association, people have the right to associate with whom they wish. If a white man does not want to associate with black people, he doesn't have to. If a white restaurant owner doesn't want to be near black people, then he should find another gig."
Haha. He should find another gig....that's funny. I haven't given this question much thought, but I'd like to throw it out anyway. What if a black person wants to be a racist white person's friend? Is the white person restricting the black person's freedom to associate with whomever he wishes by not being his friend? (Again, please leave the law out. I know what the law would say about this.)
I think you need to explain exactly what you mean when you say "place of public accomodation." It sounds to me like you're saying that, when someone creates a business, they have an ethical obligation to provide service to any and everyone that wishes to purchase their services and/or goods.
"The Bill of Rights clarifies the relationship between the citizen, state governments, and the federal government, so you're a little off, but thanks for trying to explain it."
I guess you can say it that way, but JustinDT is also correct, so I'm not sure why you say he's a little off. I feel I should quote from Anti-Federalist No. 84 (the one that dealt with the opposition to a Bill of Rights):
"The powers, rights and authority, granted to the general government by this Constitution, are as complete, with respect to every object to which they extend, as that of any State government-it reaches to every thing which concerns human happiness-life, liberty, and property are under its control. There is the same reason, therefore, that the exercise of power, in this case, should be restrained within proper limits, as in that of the State governments."
The part I wish to emphasize is "the excise of power, in this case, should be restrained within proper limits..."
So, I suppose that you can say that it clarifies the relationship between the people, the state governments, and the federal government, but that's just a side-effect of its main purpose, which was and is to express the limitations of the government.
I'll leave it at this for now.
“[W]hat you're trying to say [is] that that not helping is hurting, which is not true. If it were true, then you are hurting the homeless by typing on your blog instead of helping them find work or shelter. You are hurting the starving children by choosing to purchase those sunglasses you wear in your picture instead of donating money to them for food.”
First, I operate a place of public accommodations. I am not allowed to deny service to students on the basis of age, disability, gender, race, religion, or party affiliation. If they qualify to be in my class, I must teach them. If I excluded them on these basis, I would be violating their civil rights.
It is not a libertarian position to argue that I have the right to deny them service because I have the right to associate with whom I choose. The libertarian position is that the right to be served in a place of public accommodations is basic to the constellation of rights that make personal liberty possible.
Second, I am in fact working to make sure homeless persons have shelter. How ironic it is that you used that example.
Third, more important the donating food is working to change the food distribution system to end starvation in the world. I am part of a community working to raise awareness of food issues.
Fourth, I am one person. I can’t do everything. Therefore, even if I weren’t involved in any specific issue, you wouldn’t have an argument. These are societal responsibilities, and I call on societies to meet their moral and ethical obligations and responsibilities.
The important thing is that I am doing something that actually had an effect. I work on several fronts simultaneously by operating a blog, publishing articles and chapters, speaking at conferences, working in the community raising consciousness about a range of issues concerning human rights, etc. I work on these issues around the world. For example, I've been to the Middle East twice working on the problems of the politicization of religion and human rights and democracy in the context of UN activities. I am involved in changing the world, Anon; my conscience is clear.
One is morally obligated to do what one can, and I do what one person can.
To go back to your first statement, it's a fact that in some instances people are legally obligated to help others. The legal system in the US falls short of being a justice system. Other countries do a much better job of making basic rights manifest. It's slow here, but we are making progress.
“What if a black person wants to be a racist white person's friend? Is the white person restricting the black person's freedom to associate with whomever he wishes by not being his friend?”
You can be friends with whomever you want. If you don’t want any friends, you don’t have to have any.
“I think you need to explain exactly what you mean when you say ‘place of public accomodation [sic].’ It sounds to me like you're saying that, when someone creates a business, they have an ethical obligation to provide service to any and everyone that wishes to purchase their services and/or goods.”
If I own a place of public accommodations and don’t want a drunk and obnoxious person in my establishment, I don’t have to serve them and can in fact remove them from the premises. I can deny service with a rational justification. Denying service based on race is not a rational justification. But we have already gone through this, so I don’t know why your asking the question again.
The reason why Justin's is a weak explanation is found in your contribution of antifederalist 84. Read the passage again and you will see why. It's a matter of proper limits. Whether we are talking about personal rights or governmental powers (governments don't have rights), there are limits. Therefore the Bill of Rights clarifies the relationship between the people, the state governments, and the federal government. That is not a side effect, but the express purpose of bills of rights.
I'll try to respond to you in the same order:
1. You still need to define "a place of public accommodation." If your "place of public accommodation" is a business, then you operate "a place of private accommodation" (to use equivalent terminology). If you disagree, then I would need an explanation of why your business is.
2. Apparently, you missed my point. My point was that the idea that not helping is equivalent to hurting is absurd. To help prove that point, I challenged your own ethical system by pointing out that you chose to type on a computer to communicate with me instead of helping the homeless. You cannot possibly be doing both at the same time. Because you chose to communicate with me, you were not helping the homeless. Therefore, you are harming the homeless.
3. Same as #2.
4. Pretty much the same as #s 2 and 3. You're correct in saying that you can't do everything, which is why "not helping is hurting" is ridiculous. This means that you are de facto hurting someone, somewhere, all the time. If you are helping the homeless in New York, then you aren't helping the homeless in Los Angeles, which means that you're hurting the homeless in Los Angeles.
Your work to make change is commendable and you do garner my respect for it. However, as good as your intentions may be, your argued way of going about it is with what I find issue. Debating, convincing, educating - whatever you would like to call it - these are the tools that should be used to prevent injustices. Not force. You don't stop a person from being an alcoholic by separating him or her from the alcohol. Treat the person; not the symptom. If someone thinks that black people are worse humans than white people simply because of their skin color and, for this reason, white people refuse to provide them service, then convince those white people that they are wrong for doing so. Do not force them to provide the black people with service. It just builds the hatred that they have.
"One is morally obligated to do what one can, and I do what one person can."
This is not a challenge, but an inquiry: Who decides that you do what you can? What says you can't do more?
You also responded to my request of a definition of "a place of public accommodation." You read it to the point that you added [sic] to acknowledge my typing error, but you didn't define "a place of public accommodation."
"The reason why Justin's is a weak explanation is found in your contribution of antifederalist 84. Read the passage again and you will see why. It's a matter of proper limits. Whether we are talking about personal rights or governmental powers (governments don't have rights), there are limits. Therefore the Bill of Rights clarifies the relationship between the people, the state governments, and the federal government. That is not a side effect, but the express purpose of bills of rights."
I don't mean to be rude, but that doesn't clarify anything. You just restated what you said before without providing evidence to your case. Nor have you proven why JustinDT's comment that the Constitution is an abridgement of the federal government's rights and not the people's is a weak explanation when it is factual. Are you saying that he is missing something? Are you saying that he's incorrect? If you're saying that it's just weak in general, then why is it weak?
The Constitution created a government and said "Hey, government, this is what you can and cannot do." Those that wanted a Bill of Rights were probably thinking one of two things (at least in my opinion):
1. "Hey, we were just screwed over by a horrible system of rule, so I'd like to know what our relationship with the government will be."
or
2. "Hey, we were just screwed over by a horrible system of rule, so what is the government going to be able to tell me that I can and cannot do?"
Now, I suppose both thought processes would lead to the same conclusion, but then that leads me back to asking why saying that the Constitution outlines the limits of the government's power is a weak explanation. I almost feel like JustinDT said "1 + 2 = 3" and you were like "That's weak. It's 2 + 1 = 3."
"You still need to define 'a place of public accommodation.'"
I already and very specifically defined the term in these comments, Anon. Go back through the comments, see where I defined it, and ask me for clarification using the definition of "public accommodations" if you don't understand it. I am not wasting any more time with this. Part of the requirements for rational discussion is that participants keep track of what is being said.
"My point was that the idea that not helping is equivalent to hurting is absurd."
Morally, it's a species of intentional harm, which is why an increasing number of legal systems have made failure to help a person in distress a crime. Although some people are obligated to help persons in distress (for example, private property owners who invite people onto their property), US law is backwards on this matter by failing to legally obligate everybody who can help to help.
"Because you chose to communicate with me, you were not helping the homeless. Therefore, you are harming the homeless."
I'm not helping the homeless when I take a shit or when I sit down to dinner with my family or when I go to a parent-teacher conference. I can't help the homeless when I am working in a public schools to help stop bullying. I am not (directly) helping the homeless when I'm in Amman Jordan working with Arabs to strengthen human rights in their country. As you said it yourself: "You cannot possibly be doing both at the same time."
I'm one person. Anon. A person is morally obliged to do what is in her power to do. No moral system requires a human being to be a god. I can't do everything, thus, your paradox is absurd. You can't hold anybody to an impossible standard.
It is because of the diminished power of the one that social problems are best dealt with in a societal manner where citizens harness the power of the many. Activists can work on the issue of homelessness (and I am glad we are), but if society developed policies that changed the conditions causing homelessness, then the problem would be resolved. I can sent money to feed a starving child, but if we join together and change the food distribution system we can feed everybody. Sending money to a starving child does nothing to change the system of food distribution. It's like trying to deal with the crack cocaine problem by taking dealers off the street. If you don't deal with the reality of a system that systematically generates crack cocaine users, then you will always have dealers.
This is why the egoistic individualism of Ayn Rand or Ron Paul is so destructive to human relations and justice. In reality, individuals are part of collectives and they always have been, the largest being society; and individuals who get things done in our society are those individuals who organize into either large groups based on numbers or small groups based on intensity or operating on the basis of monied power.
Defining individual freedom as something apart from society is an ideology designed to fragment individual effort and keep the majority under the thumb of the powerful minority, a minority who fully understands the nature of collective power and who use it to its narrow and self-serving ends.
This is why, in contrast to capitalism, which allows the few to control the many, democracy is freedom giving: it allows individuals to control the collective together on the grounds that individuals should have a say-so in what affects them. The basic libertarian position is that if something affects my personal liberty, I have a say-so in it.
"You don't stop a person from being an alcoholic by separating him or her from the alcohol. Treat the person; not the symptom."
Actually, alcoholics need to stop using alcohol before they can quit. I think you meant to say something to the effect that you should treat the user rather than punish the user. Of course. You should always choose the path that leads to the least amount of interference with personal liberty.
"If someone thinks that black people are worse humans than white people simply because of their skin color and, for this reason, white people refuse to provide them service, then convince those white people that they are wrong for doing so. Do not force them to provide the black people with service."
You don't try to convince a person to stop doing something that is immoral and now illegal while letting other people suffer, Anon. You stop the person from hurting other people and if you want to talk to them about it afterwards then you do that. (They need reforming, so I think we should have a talk with them at some point.)
You are getting the cart before the horse. You don't ask a serial killer to consider why he wants to kill people and ask him to stop. You find him and stop him so other people don't get hurt. You don't ask men who beat their wives to consider the reasons why they are so violent to their spouses. You stop them so that their wives won't face anymore abuse. Obviously I can generate an endless number of examples, but surely your see the principle in operation. This is why discrimination does not depend on what people think but what they do and why we act to stop them from behaving in a harmful manner.
Let's go back to your alcohol example. When a person is hurting themselves with alcohol, then it is appropriate to talk with them about why they are doing it and help them quit. When a person is hurting other people, then you stop them from doing what they're doing. When a white person is discriminating against a black person or persons, we stop him from doing it.
Furthermore, in terms of educating the public, by saying discrimination is illegal, society sends a powerful message to white people that the proper moral position is one of anti-discrimination. As the state moved to protect the civil rights of black people, racial hatred declined in the United States. The more the state intervened to reduce discrimination, the more white people came to tolerate blacks and even accept them in the workplace and other walks of life. This is a fact (Ron Paul is completely wrong about this). Before the civil rights movement, the country was fixed and frozen in apartheid. And while white people were dragged to a higher level of racial justice kicking and screaming, their minds changed with society. Today, people are less racist in their attitudes than they were before the civil rights movement and state action to restrict discrimination. We still have a long way to go, and more laws and policies need to be devised and implemented to finish the job.
Unfortunately, we have slacked off on civil rights and, as a result, racist attitudes have regained some strength. One of the areas where we see resurgent racism is in the subject of this blog entry and comments to it. What was obviously the epitome of racism in the 1950s - white property owners discriminating against black persons - is now masquerading under the banner of individual liberty.
There is a basic truth you're not operating with here. Whereas changing individual attitudes doesn't often lead to dramatic changes in society, changing key features of society - such as the law - has a dramatic impact on individual attitudes. This fact is the conclusion of science across the disciplines. This is because consciousness is for the most part - and certainly for most people - subordinated to material conditions of their existence. It is generally not consciousness that determines reality (although there are many people who confuse their ideology with the way things are or should be), but more fundamentally reality that determines consciousness. Change reality and consciousness follows. The reason why we had to have civil rights legislation and court decisions in the first place was to change the dynamic of American race relations. Left on its own, white America would not have changed. Now we need to change the dynamic even more.
"It just builds the hatred that they have."
Why are you and others of your ilk always so concerned about the feelings of white people, but relatively or not at all unconcerned about the feelings of black people? Why is it the white people who aren't supposed to be made to feel hatred, but it doesn't really matter how black people feel about discrimination? This is another feature of racism: "Don't piss off white people." Fuck white people. If white people resent government action to reduce their race privileges, it's because their racist sentiments are being brought to the surface. Too bad. White people shouldn't have any privileges anyway, so quit trying to hang on to them. Many blacks - too few, in my view - feel hatred for the daily oppression they experience at the hands of white people. But you don't care about that. No, no, let's just make sure that we don't raise the level of hatred in the people who are doing the discriminating. After all, the feelings of white people are so much more important than the feelings of black citizens. This is such a fucked up argument, Anon.
Does it make a child angry when you take away the toy he is using to scratch the piano? Yes. Do you not do that because he may hate you for it? No. He'll get over it. Does it make the serial killer angry when you stop him from killing his victims? Sure, he will hate society even more because they are stopping him from doing a bad thing. Does that mean you don't stop him? For you, I guess we should have a talk with him and help him understand why what he's doing is wrong. Your argument completely fails, Anon. Surely you must see that.
"Who decides that you do what you can? What says you can't do more?"
Time and obligations. Obviously, I am not omnipresent and omnipotent. Human beings also need rest and relaxation. My schedule is full.
Is Justin your friend or relative? I ask this because your failure to understand a straightforward explanation seems to be rooted in loyalty rather than reason. It seems that you, Justin and Johnny are part of a group. In any case, I clearly said his argument that the Constitution is an abridgment of the federal governments rights not private citizens is a little bit off. It wasn't a major criticism, but a clarification. If he were totally correct, then why did the anti-federalist argue so forcefully for a bill of rights? I agree with the anti-federalist. And not only do we have a federal bill of rights, but we have a way of expanding the list of recognized rights.
Now, Anon, we are going to have to stop going over the same arguments. From this point forward, I will not address any argument we have already covered. So when you don't see your arguments appear either as a comment or in my response to your comments, it will mean that I have already addressed these arguments. I can't waste time covering old ground. I have too many other things to do, and I have been very generous with my time with you.
Anon is still pestering me over the definition of public accommodations. He can't figure it out from what I have said. So I thought I would provide Find Law's definition (since he doesn't care to look it up for himself). If this isn't good enough, then Anon can't be helped.
"Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered 'public accommodations.' The definition of a 'public accommodation' may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a 'public accommodation' can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:
"Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
"Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings
Government-owned/operated facilities and services.
"Government-owned facilities include courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places owned and operated by federal, state and local government.
Government-operated services, programs, or activities provided by federal, state, or local governments include transportation systems and government benefits programs (such as welfare assistance).
"Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a 'public accommodation' is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type)."
Discrimination in Public Accommodations.
As you can see, I have already defined the term. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand how anybody who believed they could argue with the point of my blog entry would not already know what the term means. I mean, if you're going to argue that whites "have the right" to discriminate against blacks in places of public accommodations you would at the very least look up the term.
I am a patient person, but these comments to my blog entry are pretty bad and getting worse. I am not going to waste my time with these three.
Sigh....Of course I can figure out what a public accommodation is by Googling it, but the reason I ask you questions is so that I can use your answers against you.
Anyways, thanks for your time. All other points I've made aside, I still don't agree with your stance based on the one, single, main idea that you have that not helping someone is the same as hurting them, which I simply something to which I cannot agree.
If you believe that not helping is the same as harming, then you must logically believe that everyone is harming someone else in some way at all times. (Which you admitted to be absurd.) If you do not believe that, then you cannot logically believe that non-violent discrimination is harmful. Yet, for some reason, you do.
I still believe your intentions are in the right place and I wish you the best of luck.
"If you believe that not helping is the same as harming, then you must logically believe that everyone is harming someone else in some way at all times. If you do not believe that, then you cannot logically believe that non-violent discrimination is harmful. Yet, for some reason, you do."
First, everyone is harming someone at all times if they never do anything to rescue the one from harm. That's not what you are trying to argue, though. You're trying to argue that anyone who is not rescuing everyone in distress is harming them. Since it is not humanly possible for anyone to rescue everyone, your argument fails.
Second, the second part of your argument does not follow logically from the first part. The second part is simply an erroneous statement. Discrimination, violent and nonviolent, is harmful to black person because it violates their civil rights.
If you believe that not helping somebody in distress is not harming them, Anon, then you don't believe in child neglect.
Anon wants to know the difference between not letting a black person in your house and not letting a black person in your place of public accommodations.
I already gave the answer. But here it is again. The answer is that the place of public accommodations is open to the public and therefore it is discrimination to refuse service to black people.
Discrimination is wrong because it is harmful to blacks and this is because it violates their civil rights, rights which are rooted in the basic organic rights recognized by various bills of rights, but which exist even when there was no law recognizing them and even in the face of laws that violate them.
This is why the civil rights movement involved black people violating the law to sit at lunch counters and to demand service at places of accommodation. Civil disobedience is breaking a law to realize a right. Eventually laws were changed to recognize this organic right.
Civil rights exist prior to the law, as I have argued over and over again in my comments. State and law merely recognize rights, Anon, they do not create them.
The three of you want a privilege for white people to harm black people by allowing them to violate the civil rights of blacks.
1. Please quote one place in this discussion in which you've argued that civil rights existed prior to or outside of the law that was not challenged logically.
2. If I make a store and say "black people only," how is that open to the general public? Because, according to the definition, a place of public accommodation is one that is open to the general public.
It is fundamental to all my arguments on this subject that civil rights exist prior to and outside of the law. Laws don't create rights, Anon. Law, where it coincides with rights, is the formal recognition of rights.
Anon, there is no right to discriminate in places of public accommodation. There was no such right even when it was legal to do so. De jure segregation was overturned because it violated the civil rights of black people. This is why Paul is wrong, and showing why he is wrong is the very point of this thread.
A place of public accommodations can't have a sign that says whites only because that would harm black people by violating their civil rights. If you want to have a sign on the front door of your private home that says "whites only" then have at it. But you can't post that sign at your place of public accommodations without penalty.
Why do you keep trying to not understand this very basic and straightforward point, Anon? You're really being thick on this. You keep saying that morality and law are separate things, but I am the one who is actually making arguments based on that distinction.
Post a Comment