decentralize government and conservative anarchist or libertarian

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

You and Emacknight have a serious flaw in your entire attempt an an argument based upon the idea that there is inconsistency that the government does not regulate the ‘money’ on the seller’s side.

That is because there is no way to prove there has been discrimination by the public on the sellers’ side because the commodity is not ‘unique’ like ‘MONEY’ is.

If I were a black man in 1963 and drove my '58 Studebaker past a JPAULGETTY owned gas station that was owned and operated by a WHITE MAN to buy my gas from Moses Malone who is black who sold “PURE” Gasoline a half mile down the road:

A} The Getty seller would not know why I drove past. and

B) He would not know if I were discriminating because of the deficiencies in the commodity that he was selling or if I just didn’t like John Paul Getty himself because he treated his kids badly and that was in the news.
On the other hand If I pulled my Studebaker into the Getty Station and tried to fill up and the Owner comes out and yells NO N***ERS served here and I have what you call the ‘Commodity’ that is the same exact COMMODITY that white peope pay for his gasoline, then I know GD well why that racist mofo is not selling me his gas.

That is why the government can and should regulate the transaction as they are not regulatiing ‘use of the sellers private property’ they are regulating the use of MINE on my behalf.

the Feds have NO INTEREST in protecting Getty Oil and would have no way of proving that any discrimination was based upon race.
And furhtermore since very few blacks in the south owned gas stations in the Sixties this argument is narrow and full of holes on that point as well.

you and Emacknight have no argument.

You started with this lofty ideal: there is a natural right to treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor.

You have since backed so far away from that statement, that you’re now arguing that discrimination on the customer’s side isn’t illegal because it’s hard to prove, or because money is a special commodity that the government can control, even when no money changes hands.

You are now just arguing that Title II of the CRA is valid, because it’s the law. The natural right that you claimed underlaid it is now a shambles: it applies to some groups but not others; some individuals but not others; it applies to interstate commerce by open-to-the-public businesses only; it applies when harm is done but also sometimes when harm is not done, and sometimes doesn’t apply when harm is done…

So, with all that in mind, I’ll offer you a fresh chance to state, simply and directly, why Title II should be the law of the land, why the infringement on liberty that you admit it consists of is justified.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

Jesus. Again, I’d bet top dollar that you’d reject this exact same reasoning being applied to any other right. “Of course you can’t screen that anti-government film in your theater, there’s a highway nearby!” “Of course we can search your bar without a warrant, didn’t you see that bridge outside?”

Fifth Amendment rights are no less real than First or Fourth ones..

You’d lose your top ‘universal medium of exchange’ then.

an anti-government film I presume would be aimed against the US Government, not a racially based minority. So it matters not that there is a highway nearby.

If a crime is suspected of being in progress that search can happen now. Nothing I’ve argued diminishes the need for the governmnet to go throgh the normal procedures just because there is a bridge nearby.

Try to address my points as I have expressed them, please.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

You started with this lofty ideal: there is a natural right to treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor.

You have since backed so far away from that statement, that you’re now arguing that discrimination on the customer’s side isn’t illegal because it’s hard to prove, or because money is a special commodity that the government can control, even when no money changes hands.

I have not backed away one iota from that statement. You must remember that it contains the qualification that the natural right exists without prejuduce and discrimination against it based upon, “as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor.”

You have failed to establish that a seller of gasoline is comparable to a group that is selling US Dollars.

Gasoline is not a ‘universal medium of exchange’ as is US Currency.

Sellers are selling gasoline. Buyers are selling Dollars.
my statement is between comparable groups and you have failed to convince anyone that buyers and sellers of gasoline are two comparable groups.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

an anti-government film I presume would be aimed against the US Government, not a racially based minority. So it matters not that there is a highway nearby.

If a crime is suspected of being in progress that search can happen now. Nothing I’ve argued diminishes the need for the governmnet to go throgh the normal procedures just because there is a bridge nearby.

You just argued that rights may be trampled if “Federal dollars went into building the roads and bridges and highway system that brings potential customers.”

So, only Fifth Amendment rights may be thusly trampled, or only if the trampling is in the name of a racial minority, or what?

@NotfooledbyW

Try to address my points as I have expressed them, please.

I try, you just have a hard time with the implications of what you write.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

You started with this lofty ideal: there is a natural right to treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor.

You have since backed so far away from that statement, that you’re now arguing that discrimination on the customer’s side isn’t illegal because it’s hard to prove, or because money is a special commodity that the government can control, even when no money changes hands.

You are now just arguing that Title II of the CRA is valid, because it’s the law. The natural right that you claimed underlaid it is now a shambles: it applies to some groups but not others; some individuals but not others; it applies to interstate commerce by open-to-the-public businesses only; it applies when harm is done but also sometimes when harm is not done, and sometimes doesn’t apply when harm is done…

So, with all that in mind, I’ll offer you a fresh chance to state, simply and directly, why Title II should be the law of the land, why the infringement on liberty that you admit it consists of is justified.

I have argued that no infringement on liberty exists regarding a seller of gasoline and all the commodities and services involved because the seller has made the** life choice **to go into the public arena and put his commodity into the public marketplace.

His/her right to be a racist and express racist viewsstill exists. he just cannot use public trade and commerce to express it and harm others based upon their race.

It is not a** life choice **for an individual to be born black and as a minority and primarily a lower income and disadvantaged minority without a lot of assets.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

You just argued that rights may be trampled if “Federal dollars went into building the roads and bridges and highway system that brings potential customers.”

Here’s what I wrote,

And unless he can prove that no Federal dollars went into building the roads and bridges and highway system that brings potential customers into the Let’s Hate Inn, then he needs to quit yapping about his private property rights being trampled by the US Government when he gets told he cannot discriminate on customers becaue of race.

He needs to quit yapping because in fact his rights have not been trampled when HE DECIDES himself to put up his business to make use of public roads and bridges the bring public customers to his place of business.

I didn’t argue that “that rights may be trampled” as you misquoted the paragraph from which you picked up that phrase.

More strawmen?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

I have not backed away one iota from that statement. You must remember that it contains the qualification that the natural right exists without prejuduce and discrimination against it based upon, “as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor.”

You have failed to establish that a seller of gasoline is comparable to a group that is selling US Dollars.

Gasoline is not a ‘universal medium of exchange’ as is US Currency.

Sellers are selling gasoline. Buyers are selling Dollars.

This is your, what, tenth version of why sellers should not enjoy protection from discrimination?

First was a Historical Imbalance of Power argument:

@NotfooledbyW

My answer ‘no’ to emacknight’s reverse white and black situation is only because for the Gas Station owner scenario to be valid as an argument it would have also considered that the ‘Separate but Equal’ was also reversed.

Whites would be subject to lynching and other forms of Post WWII harrassment and discrimination for there to be an argument and remedy along thise lines. taking on moment of historical reality out of the context of long periods of historical reality.

Such as many black men and women served their country and their Constitution during WWII when even the US Military was segregated. The likelyhood of a lot of those veterans of combat coming home and owning a gas station was not very good. You can reverse that illegitmate condition by typing out a what if for one gas station in the South during the Civil Rights fight or today.

Then, you remarked that the “right” you’ve promoted only exists if the Federal government enacts it into law, which is the opposite of a natural right:

@NotfooledbyW

If white’s are the party in power and with most control of most of the property, then they would not need the Federal Government to intervene if a lone black gas station owner or even if it were a few black owners that refused to serve white folks.

Then, it was that a refusal to buy didn’t affect commerce the way a refusal to sell did:

@NotfooledbyW

No. A Black Business owner is not harmed because there is no obligation on the part of the consumer to buy anything from anyone at all.

There is no deprivation of a necessity/commodity while traveling across state lines in this case.

Then, it was the-black-guy-should-know-better, and, amusingly, a free-market solution:

@NotfooledbyW

The white racist is withholding his private property (money) from going into a black man’s cash register by going out of his way to avoid contributing to a black owned business.

While that may be detrimental for a black business owner in a predominately white neighborhood, the black business owner may not have located his business where black customers were not part of his business plan.

Also, all white folk are not racists.

So a black businessman may have an advantage because 99% of blacks would support his business while also attracting a share of white customers that were not full blown racist bigots.

Then it was, well, no one’s sought this protection, which has nothing to do with natural rights:

@NotfooledbyW

No one has sought protection from the Feds on that basis.

Then it was, owners are a group unto themselves, their race/religion/ethnicity doesn’t matter, they aren’t black or white, Christian or Hindu, they are owners:

@NotfooledbyW

The black business owner as part of the larger group of business owners does not have a right to be treated ‘without prejudice and discrimination’ from potential general public customers because he has no special rights to be treated any differently than his non-black business owner peers are also treated by the consuming public. Non-black business equals of the larger business-owner peer group can be and are treated with prejudice and discrimination all the time.

Then it was, customer don’t discriminate, they treat businesses equally and select vendors based only on service and products:

@NotfooledbyW

I have expressed this in many ways. Groups on the buying side treat business owners in an equal way. They disriminate in deciding which owner gives the best service and they discriminate for whatever reason a consumer of products or services chooses to discriminate. But the key is that the overall group of consumers (black and white) discriminate equally against white businesses or black businesses or green or brown or blue businesses. They all do it.

Then the “life decision”, as though staying at a hotel isn’t a life decision too…

@NotfooledbyW

Starting a business is a life decision.

Being born black or white is not a decision a consumer makes.

Then, you allowed that the right didn’t apply to private clubs, even though they are dealing in currency:

@NotfooledbyW

You have answered the question as to why private clubs are not regulated by the CRA.
…

It is the property owner that decides to open his gas station or restaurant to the public for profit. And it is the property owner that decides to keep his property private which includes turning it into a private club if he wants to.

Then, finally, you settled on this currency-is-special position:

@NotfooledbyW

In this discussion US Currency is unique and is a unique medium of exchange for billions of public and private transactions. Gasoline is limited when compared to US currency in its purpose.

Even though you permit private clubs to discriminate while dealing in US dollars, and even though you don’t allow discrimination where no money changes hands:

@NotfooledbyW

IF an innkeeper advertised to the general public that his rooms are free to any anonymous person who would like to use it, then he/she has just made his/her private property public. He was not forced to put his property up for public consumption by the government.

There is no problem with his private property rights being violated based on his choice.

Whew! That’s a long and winding road.

@NotfooledbyW

my statement is between comparable groups and you have failed to convince anyone that buyers and sellers of gasoline are two comparable groups.

You’re falling back into your bad habit from the “Hubris” thread about trying to claim victory. Who’s this “anyone” you speak for?

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

You started with this lofty ideal: there is a natural right to treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor.

You have since backed so far away from that statement, that you’re now arguing that discrimination on the customer’s side isn’t illegal because it’s hard to prove,

I have not backed away from my lofty ideal and clearly written statement because there is a supportive FACT that it would be impossible to prove that a black buyer has decided to not buy Getty Oil because Getty and the station owner are white. It is because they are not equal as groups to address your attempt at an argument that selling money and selling gasoline is the same exact thing when it is not. Money is used by the entire group of black and white customers. The same exact money. Gasoline is sold the by the entire group of Gasoline sellers but their commodity is not the same, nor is it a universal 'medium of exchange.

That is a difference between the groups. My statement stand full and clear.

Your statement that a transaction of selling money and selling gasoline is the same exact thing.

It is not and now you want to argue in generalities about my argument being in shambles. It is not.

It is all written right here for all to see.

You need Sunoco and Exxon and BP’s commodity to be a universal medium of exchange the way the a US Dollar is to have an argument. And you cannot make it be.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

I have argued that no infringement on liberty exists regarding a seller of gasoline and all the commodities and services involved because the seller has made the** life choice **to go into the public arena and put his commodity into the public marketplace.

His/her right to be a racist and express racist viewsstill exists. he just cannot use public trade and commerce to express it and harm others based upon their race.

Buying things from a particular business is a life choice too.

@NotfooledbyW

It is not a** life choice **for an individual to be born black and as a minority and primarily a lower income and disadvantaged minority without a lot of assets.

See, this why you see strawmen everywhere. When you make a point, it’s often draped in these little asides that just blur what you’re trying to say. Am I to take this to mean being disadvantaged economically justifies special protections? That only disadvantaged groups (as opposed to Christians, or white people) should be covered under the CRA, or what? If the fact that the average black fellow has less in the way of assets than your average white fellow matters to your argument, then explain that. If it doesn’t, then don’t make the aside.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Here’s what I wrote,

He needs to quit yapping because in fact his rights have not been trampled when HE DECIDES himself to put up his business to make use of public roads and bridges the bring public customers to his place of business.

I didn’t argue that “that rights may be trampled” as you misquoted the paragraph from which you picked up that phrase.

More strawmen?

How the heckfire was I supposed to get that from “he needs to quit yapping about his private property rights being trampled by the US Government” ? That’s highly ambiguous.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

I have not backed away from my lofty ideal and clearly written statement because there is a supportive FACT that it would be impossible to prove that a black buyer has decided to not buy Getty Oil because Getty and the station owner are white. It is because they are not equal as groups to address your attempt at an argument that selling money and selling gasoline is the same exact thing when it is not. Money is used by the entire group of black and white customers. The same exact money. Gasoline is sold the by the entire group of Gasoline sellers but their commodity is not the same, nor is it a universal 'medium of exchange.

That is a difference between the groups. My statement stand full and clear.

Your statement that a transaction of selling money and selling gasoline is the same exact thing.

It is not and now you want to argue in generalities about my argument being in shambles. It is not.

I didn’t say your argument was in shambles, just the natural right you were positing. Strawman!

@NotfooledbyW

It is all written right here for all to see.

You need Sunoco and Exxon and BP’s commodity to be a universal medium of exchange the way the a US Dollar is to have an argument. And you cannot make it be.

So, discrimination is fine as long as dollars aren’t involved? If I decide to sell gasoline for pigs, I can turn away any race or religion I like?

[NotfooledbyW]

(A) This is your, what, tenth version of why sellers should not enjoy protection from discrimination? First was a Historical Imbalance of Power argument: -**Action Human Action 04-27-2013 10:36 AM **

{{My answer ‘no’ to emacknight’s reverse white and black situation is only because for the Gas Station owner scenario to be valid as an argument it would have also considered that the ‘Separate but Equal’ was also reversed.

Whites would be subject to lynching and other forms of Post WWII harassment and discrimination for there to be an argument and remedy along these lines, taking one moment of historical reality out of the context of long periods of historical reality.

Such as many black men and women served their country and their Constitution during WWII when even the US Military was segregated. The likelihood of a lot of those veterans of combat coming home and owning a gas station was not very good. You can reverse that illegitimate condition by typing out a what if for one gas station in the South during the Civil Rights fight or today. - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW }}

This is an answer “NO” to Emacknight’s question. Is there something incorrect about this answer. How does this mean I have backed off or changed my original point?

(B) Then, you remarked that the “right” you’ve promoted only exists if the Federal government enacts it into law, which is the opposite of a natural right: -**Action Human Action 04-27-2013 10:36 AM **

{{If white’s are the party in power and with most control of most of the property, then they would not need the Federal Government to intervene if a lone black gas station owner or even if it were a few black owners that refused to serve white folks. - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW }}

The right I speak of exists whether or not a law is passed to protect it. It cannot be an opposite of what it is.

(C)Then, it was that a refusal to buy didn’t affect commerce the way a refusal to sell did: -**Action Human Action 04-27-2013 10:36 AM **

{{No. A Black Business owner is not harmed because there is no obligation on the part of the consumer to buy anything from anyone at all. … There is no deprivation of a necessity/commodity while traveling across state lines in this case. - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW }}

I don’t know what you are tallking about. I wrote “There is no deprivation of a necessity/commodity while traveling across state lines in this case” and there is no deprivation of a commodity like gasoline." If you believe this statement is incorrect please explain why. If not the point stands.

(D)Then, it was the-black-guy-should-know-better, and, amusingly, a free-market solution: -**Human Action 04-27-2013 10:36 AM **

{{ The white racist is withholding his private property (money) from going into a black man’s cash register by going out of his way to avoid contributing to a black owned business.
While that may be detrimental for a black business owner in a predominately white neighborhood, the black business owner may not have located his business where black customers were not part of his business plan.

Also, all white folk are not racists.

So a black businessman may have an advantage because 99% of blacks would support his business while also attracting a share of white customers that were not full blown racist bigots. - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW }}

[QUOTE]
(E)Then it was, well, no one’s sought this protection, which has nothing to do with natural rights: -**Action Human Action 04-27-2013 10:36 AM **
{{No one has sought protection from the Feds on that basis. - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW }} QUOTE]

Since when is a statement of fact that supports an argument on a list of complaints against the argument?

(F) Then it was, owners are a group unto themselves, their race/religion/ethnicity doesn’t matter, they aren’t black or white, Christian or Hindu, they are owners: -**Human Action 04-27-2013 10:36 AM **
{{The black business owner as part of the larger group of business owners does not have a right to be treated ‘without prejudice and discrimination’ from potential general public customers because he has no special rights to be treated any differently than his non-black business owner peers are also treated by the consuming public. Non-black business equals of the larger business-owner peer group can be and are treated with prejudice and discrimination all the time. - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW }}

The statement you are fussing about is about ‘groups’ and comparing the groups and sub-groups as an explanation as to why one part of one group is being protected by the CRA and why another group is not entitled to that protection. And you have not countered this argument at all.

(G) Then it was, customer don’t discriminate, they treat businesses equally and select vendors based only on service and products: -**Human Action 04-27-2013 10:36 AM **

{{I have expressed this in many ways. Groups on the buying side treat business owners in an equal way. They discriminate in deciding which owner gives the best service and they discriminate for whatever reason a consumer of products or services chooses to discriminate. But the key is that the overall group of consumers (black and white) discriminate equally against white businesses or black businesses or green or brown or blue businesses. They all do it. -Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW }}

You have inserted ‘only’ into your comment stating that I wrote it.

“select vendors based only on service and products”

I did not say that they ‘only’ do that. People discriminate all the time for all reasons including race. It is the combination of all discrimination that happens together that matters.

(H) Then the “life decision”, as though staying at a hotel isn’t a life decision too… -**Action Human Action 04-27-2013 10:36 AM **

{{Being born black or white is not a decision a consumer makes. - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW }}

Starting a business is a major life decision and I realize the need to be cute about everything after birth of an individual and reaching a certain age is a life decision, but what you did is separate that statement from the main point that being born is not a life decision.

You get no points here.

(I) Then, you allowed that the right didn’t apply to private clubs, even though they are dealing in currency: -**Action Human Action 04-27-2013 10:36 AM **

You have answered the question as to why private clubs are not regulated by the CRA. … It is the property owner that decides to open his gas station or restaurant to the public for profit. And it is the property owner that decides to keep his property private which includes turning it into a private club if he wants to. - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW }}

It is a matter of using you private property for public use and commerce. Nothing complicated here.

(J) Then, finally, you settled on this currency-is-special position: -**Human Action 04-27-2013 10:36 AM **

{{In this discussion US Currency is unique and is a unique medium of exchange for billions of public and private transactions. Gasoline is limited when compared to US currency in its purpose. - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW }}

The US dollar if you wish to compare it as a commodity that buyers are selling to purchase other commodities is unique and therefore special in that it is a Money is a universal medium of exchange and gasoline is not. You cannot refute that because it is too factual.

(K) Even though you permit private clubs to discriminate while dealing in US dollars, and even though you don’t allow discrimination where no money changes hands: -** Human Action 04-27-2013 10:36 AM **

{{IF an innkeeper advertised to the general public that his rooms are free to any anonymous person who would like to use it, then he/she has just made his/her private property public. He was not forced to put his property up for public consumption by the government. … There is no problem with his private property rights being violated based on his choice. - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW }}

I have answered this one. Do we have to waste time on a miniscule number of transactions that have taken place over the centuries of human progress and commerce.

(L) Whew! That’s a long and winding road. -**Action Human Action 04-27-2013 10:36 AM **

And we see that you have slid off the pavement many many times.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

(A) I didn’t say your argument was in shambles, just the natural right you were positing. Strawman!

(B) So, discrimination is fine as long as dollars aren’t involved? If I decide to sell gasoline for pigs, I can turn away any race or religion I like?

re: (A) The Natural Right is a key element in my argument. My point stands. My natural right ‘posit’ is not in shambles at all. None if it is. No part of my argument to defend it. That is why you have retreated to speaking in generalities.

You posted several paragraphs including some of my points as you made this limited and general reply.

This is a point that you appear to seek to avoid:

{{I have not backed away from my lofty ideal and clearly written statement because there is a supportive **FACT **that it would be impossible to prove that a black buyer has decided to not buy Getty Oil because Getty and the station owner are white. It is because they are not equal as groups to address your attempt at an argument that selling money and selling gasoline is the same exact thing when it is not. Money is used by the entire group of black and white customers. The same exact money. Gasoline is sold the by the entire group of Gasoline sellers but their commodity is not the same, nor is it a universal 'medium of exchange. … That is a difference between the groups. My statement stand full and clear. }}

Again, what of my natural right posit is in shambles.

re: (B) Like I told Emacknight, racial discrimination is never fine. And as far as my argument goes, if you decide to sell gasoline for pigs, it is the same as it would be for money. then all your gasoline transactions would be in pigs, and you would have a lot of pigs. I suppose it might work, but people in a Mini Cooper would have a tough time bring the pigs. And what if they could only fill up to the value of half a pig. Do you cut it in half and each take a bloody carcas away from the transaction.

But like I’ve been saying about equal groups.. that still applies here. All people traveling would be treated equally so if the black family from Arkansas didn’t have a pig or two in their backseat to ‘sell’ to you then they would have to move on.

You have no problem running your business this way as long as you don’t take cash from the white guy filling up his F150 on his way to the Grand Old Opry and is not requrired to sell pigs for his gas.

Your station would be so smelly I doubt anyone would use it unless they had no other choice anyway.

I wonder how the bureau of measurements and standards would collect taxes and what would be the symbol of Pigs/Per gallon if the $ was replaced on your pumps.
I did live in Thompson station Tennessee for a few years and the gas station nearest my house was also a stockyard/transfer point for cattle and pigs etc. But they took my cash for gasoline just the same.

[emacknight]

@NotfooledbyW

It is not a** life choice **for an individual to be born black and as a minority and primarily a lower income and disadvantaged minority without a lot of assets.

It’s a life choice to open a business, so there is no right to have customers.

Isn’t it also a life choice to own a car, and then drive that car across state lines, without sufficient gas to get back home?

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

How the heckfire was I supposed to get that from “he needs to quit yapping about his private property rights being trampled by the US Government” ? That’s highly ambiguous.

Four words (see below) made it plain enough what my intent was. … **unless he can prove ** … That is, if he is engaged in a unique business such as running a Ku Klux Klan Headquaters and training facility that is apart and not dependent upon attracting customers from the general population who are actively engaged in general commerce and use of the public infrastructure, Then the Feds and the CRA laws do not apply to him.

If this bigot decides he wants to attract the general public to make more money than he can with his little clan of haters, then it is his decision and he should shut the hell up about his rights being trampled when conducting that business in public.

And **unless he can prove **that no Federal dollars went into building the roads and bridges and highway system that brings potential customers into the Let’s Hate Inn, then he needs to quit yapping about his private property rights being trampled by the US Government when he gets told he cannot discriminate on customers becaue of race. -Ntfldbw

[NotfooledbyW]

@emacknight

(A) It’s a life choice to open a business, so there is no right to have customers.

re: (B) Isn’t it also a life choice to own a car, and then drive that car across state lines, without sufficient gas to get back home?

re: (A) What I have been saying is the business person does not have a ‘right’ to the customers’ money just because they opened a business and would like to attract them. And that is an equal condition for the group of black business owners and for the group of white business owners all within the entire group of business owners.
re: (B) What has been under discussion is that a black family traveling across country should have the same opportunity to purchase gasoline just like white families do when they travel across country. So when a white gas station owner refuses to sell gasoline to black folks based solely upon the color of their skin but sells to white folks who are in a similar traveling situation, then that bigot is violating the black family’s elementary right to be treated as equals with the white familiy as they engage in commerce and attempt to freely move about the country.

Why should a black family have to tow a gasoline tank filled with enough fuel to carry them 900 miles and back simply because some hate-filled white creeps along the way refuses to sell gasoline to very nice people who have the cash just like white people at every filling station?

What makes black folks less American and less equal than white people that they should not enjoy the same fruits of their labor and have equal access to the infrastructure that their taxes helped build just so these sickos can hide behind some private property and freedom of speech rights they claim they are entitled to. No one forced them to open up a gas station but themselves. They want the money from the general public but they are not entitled to express their hate and racist views by depriving one group of a needed and useful commodity when they are conducting business and commerce in the PUBLIC DOMAIN?

Why are black people to be so uneqaully inconvenienced while traveling on the public highways of this great country of ours?

[Human_Action]

Sartre was right…

@NotfooledbyW

This is an answer “NO” to Emacknight’s question. Is there something incorrect about this answer. How does this mean I have backed off or changed my original point?

Ok, non-shockingly, you have missed my point, as I have seemingly continued to miss some of yours. I was illustrating the tremendous number of independent sub-arguments that you’ve invoked in support of your natural-rights argument. This shotgun approach, coupled with some fast-and-loose interchanging of natural rights, legal rights, morality, and historical factors as if they were all one and the same thing. So, I guess it’s more like a Safety Slug argument, a bunch of different things pressed together.

Someone needs to break the cycle here, so I appoint myself. I’ll address a few more things shortly, but for now, here’s a breakdown. Tell me if it’s correct.

The right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor.

Who has this right?

1. Individual customers.
2. Who are engaged in interstate commerce with a business covered under Title II
3. When currency is being used,
4. But also when it’s not being used.

Who does not have this right?

1. Business owners, whether as sellers or as customers of other businesses.
2. Customers seeking to buy from or join private clubs.
3. Customers of establishments not engaged in interstate commerce.

@NotfooledbyW

The statement you are fussing about is about ‘groups’ and comparing the groups and sub-groups as an explanation as to why one part of one group is being protected by the CRA and why another group is not entitled to that protection. And you have not countered this argument at all.

I must not understand all this group/sub-group stuff, because it makes no sense to me. Can you outline it in detail?

@NotfooledbyW

You have inserted ‘only’ into your comment stating that I wrote it.

“select vendors based only on service and products”

I did not say that they ‘only’ do that. People discriminate all the time for all reasons including race. It is the combination of all discrimination that happens together that matters.

You wrote:

@NotfooledbyW

Groups on the buying side treat business owners in an equal way. They discriminate in deciding which owner gives the best service and they discriminate for whatever reason a consumer of products or services chooses to discriminate. But the key is that the overall group of consumers (black and white) discriminate equally against white businesses or black businesses or green or brown or blue businesses.

“Customers discriminate on price and service, but not race” seems like a reasonable reading to me, especially given that “discriminate equally against white business or black businesses” line. But, feel free to set me straight.

@NotfooledbyW

The US dollar if you wish to compare it as a commodity that buyers are selling to purchase other commodities is unique and therefore special in that it is a Money is a universal medium of exchange and gasoline is not. You cannot refute that because it is too factual.

Are you familiar with the term “a distinction without a difference”? This is an example of that. Yes, money is unlike other commodities. Diamonds are unlike other commodities. Corn is unlike other commodities. Beaver pelts are unlike other commodities. Yes, money is more commonly used as a medium of exchange than gasoline is. Therefore…?

I don’t understand, at all, why you insist that money being involved makes a transaction more regulatable, when you state that transactions in which money is not involved are subject to the same natural-right restriction. Please explain.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

re: (A) The Natural Right is a key element in my argument. My point stands. My natural right ‘posit’ is not in shambles at all. None if it is. No part of my argument to defend it. That is why you have retreated to speaking in generalities.

You posted several paragraphs including some of my points as you made this limited and general reply.

I’m trying not to spend the next year on this thread. Specifics have spun us off into tangents, it’s time to back up into generalities.

@NotfooledbyW

This is a point that you appear to seek to avoid:

{{I have not backed away from my lofty ideal and clearly written statement because there is a supportive **FACT **that it would be impossible to prove that a black buyer has decided to not buy Getty Oil because Getty and the station owner are white. It is because they are not equal as groups to address your attempt at an argument that selling money and selling gasoline is the same exact thing when it is not. Money is used by the entire group of black and white customers. The same exact money. Gasoline is sold the by the entire group of Gasoline sellers but their commodity is not the same, nor is it a universal 'medium of exchange. … That is a difference between the groups. My statement stand full and clear. }}

Again, what of my natural right posit is in shambles.

Please don’t try to assign motives to me, it’s obnoxious.

Your above mixes a number of things you’ve asserted that I just don’t get: the group/sub-group stuff, why the difficulty of enforcement factors at all into a natural right (it doesn’t, you seem have a hard time with the difference between a legal right and a natural right), the money-is-special stuff…it’s just a Gordian knot of “huh?” I addressed this in my previous post, so hopefully you can articulate all of this clearly.

@NotfooledbyW

re: (B) Like I told Emacknight, racial discrimination is never fine. And as far as my argument goes, if you decide to sell gasoline for pigs, it is the same as it would be for money. then all your gasoline transactions would be in pigs, and you would have a lot of pigs. I suppose it might work, but people in a Mini Cooper would have a tough time bring the pigs. And what if they could only fill up to the value of half a pig. Do you cut it in half and each take a bloody carcas away from the transaction.

But like I’ve been saying about equal groups.. that still applies here. All people traveling would be treated equally so if the black family from Arkansas didn’t have a pig or two in their backseat to ‘sell’ to you then they would have to move on.

You have no problem running your business this way as long as you don’t take cash from the white guy filling up his F150 on his way to the Grand Old Opry and is not requrired to sell pigs for his gas.

Your station would be so smelly I doubt anyone would use it unless they had no other choice anyway.

I wonder how the bureau of measurements and standards would collect taxes and what would be the symbol of Pigs/Per gallon if the $ was replaced on your pumps.
I did live in Thompson station Tennessee for a few years and the gas station nearest my house was also a stockyard/transfer point for cattle and pigs etc. But they took my cash for gasoline just the same.

See, this is just baffling. You write at length about how money is special as a medium of exchange, but then apply the exact same everything to transactions without money. Looking forward to an explanation.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Four words (see below) made it plain enough what my intent was. … **unless he can prove ** … That is, if he is engaged in a unique business such as running a Ku Klux Klan Headquaters and training facility that is apart and not dependent upon attracting customers from the general population who are actively engaged in general commerce and use of the public infrastructure, Then the Feds and the CRA laws do not apply to him.

If this bigot decides he wants to attract the general public to make more money than he can with his little clan of haters, then it is his decision and he should shut the hell up about his rights being trampled when conducting that business in public.

It wasn’t plain to me, and it still isn’t. Were you referring to the interstate commerce requirement from the CRA? Because that makes no reference to who build the highways and bridges. Here’s the text:

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

So, proving who built the roads that his customers use has nothing to do with anything, here. Very confused here.

[emacknight]

@NotfooledbyW

re: (B) What has been under discussion is that a black family traveling across country should have the same opportunity to purchase gasoline just like white families do when they travel across country.

What you’re saying here is not that people have a right to buy gas, but rather, they have a right to travel without inconvenience.

@NotfooledbyW

…elementary right to be treated as equals with the white familiy as they engage in commerce and attempt to freely move about the country.

Once again you’ve created a right to engage in commerce. But you forgot to specify that you only have the right to one side of commerce. According to you, a black family does NOT have the right to be treated equally if they attempt sell something, only if they want to buy something.

If the black family went to a flea market or gun show, set up a table, and then stood there alone while all the racists ignored their table, tough titties. But if they leave their table and walk around, they suddenly have a right to buy stuff.

@NotfooledbyW

Why are black people to be so uneqaully inconvenienced while traveling on the public highways of this great country of ours?

First tell me why traveling around on public highways isn’t considered a choice. Are you trying to suggest that traveling on public highways–without inconvenience-- is a right?

And as you spin around in this giant circle, consider where the black family is supposed to get that special currency, if not by selling something. And how are they supposed to buy gas and travel about this great country if they have no money?