I did not say the right **‘only exists’ **when it is being infringed. This elementary right is basic and always exists. It is an elementary right in that it is not noticed unless it is infringed when certain conditions such as occurred in the US Southern States mostly create a need for society to put a stop to the indecent infringement of it.
Herb is an independent gas station owner, he buys his fuel from whichever distributer is cheaper that week.
:smack: You didn’t read about rights, did you?
The question was, is Herb violating any rights? If so, which? Women aren’t covered under the CRA, by the way.
You didn’t? You wrote below that rights are seemingly tied to the need to protect them, plus some stuff about rights being seen and verified . I think. Your prose can get really odd at times.
The following contains the words that were the focus of your complaint or insult about my ‘prose’ which is typical when reasonable objections and complaints against my argument or point cannot be made or found.
You attacked President Kennedy and my use of the words ‘elementary rights’ by complaining as follows:
and:
and:
To the second HA quote, there was a time when dark skinned human beings from Africa considered property and were a commodity that could be bought and sold like horses within the US Constitution that protected the ‘rights’ of the people that owned slaves.
So Black People must wait until really wise people like Senator Rand Paul determines that a ‘theory of rights’ by any name has been established and historically evolves. Fortunately the elementary right of black people evolved prior to Rand Paul being born and black people at least joined the lighter skinned mostly European race as having the same natural rights and legal rights as they should.
That is called evolution of rights. I suspect all human rights have gone from a stage of being an elementary right to a natural right at some point in the evolution of mankind over many millennia.
Your expressed requirement to have an established theory in place to suffice such a necessary action on the part of a society’s government, as the CRA is, to wipe out the last vestige of indignity of being considered less than human which was being coerced upon some remaining emancipated slaves and their progeny by property owners with more claims of ‘property rights’ and ‘freedom of speech’ explains a lot about the mind of a libertarian in this country today.
Civil Rights evolve. I don’t need a philosopher, or a wise man or a Jesus to teach me what an elementary right is. Or which side was wrong and which side was right, mostly in the US South in the 1950s and 1960s. I have no less dedication to the perpetuation of liberty for all human beings because I believe the CRA was fully justified and a monumental day for all Americans protection of their liberty.
As to the first HA quote above, if one needs a theory to understand what President Kennedy then I guess I can’t help you understand what this means, "no one should suffer the racial indignity that many decent law abiding hard working Americans suffered in 1963’.. at the hands of white property owners who controlled the vast majority of all available commodities and property. (Not ALL BUT MOST)
As a white man I have an elementary right “to be served in facilities which are open to the public - hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments” wherever I go in America as JFK said. If in the course of history white’s become a minority and non-whites band together to discriminate in the ways discrimination took place in the American south or some newly evolved version, I would, or my progeny should, petition the government to protect my right. As of right now I am in no need of protection. The elementary right always exists but it only matters according to the situations that come up in the evolution of humans interacting in created societies and cultures around the planet upon which we all live. It is still evolving in many parts of the world.
You should not need a theory to understand this, I considered it basic common sense.
Try to develop a little more self-awareness. I’m no master of rhetoric myself, but many of your posts are just plain opaque. You know that I’m not the first person to point this out, either. It’s not an insult, or a rebuttal of your point(s), it’s a simple statement of fact: I, and others, are consistently unable to interpret what you are saying in the manner that you intend. You can either take that as a debate tactic, or an opportunity to write with more clarity and precision.
Not in those posts, I didn’t. Note the lack of the phrase “elementary rights”. By the way, I still don’t know what elementary rights are. When you Google it, all you get is the rights of elementary school children.
Google results:
Natural rights = 961 million.
Legal rights = 1.41 billion
Elementary rights = 301 million
This is true. The rights of slave owners were real; notice that the 13th Amendment didn’t remove the concept of property rights, it removed the institution of slavery; in effect removing “people” from the class of things that constitute property.
So elementary rights are not the same as natural or legal rights?
Huh? You should be able to articulate what the right you keep pointing to is, and where it comes from, because you are the one who came up with it. The right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor, remember? That’s not what the CRA says, and that’s not what Kennedy said, that’s your idea on the matter.
All the legislature needs to do is pass a law to create a right, that’s what legal rights are. So no, natural rights are not necessary for the creation of legal rights.
The minds of libertarians are such that we like liberty, a lot.
So, you dismiss the concept of a theory of rights, but persist in using the term “elementary rights” as though it has meaning outside of a theory of rights. It doesn’t.
Huh? You should be able to articulate what the right you keep pointing to is, and where it comes from, because you are the one who came up with it. The right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor, remember? That’s not what the CRA says, and that’s not what Kennedy said, that’s your idea on the matter. -human action.
What JFK said and the CRA says does not differ from how I put it. You are nitpicking.
Kennedy said:
You said that people have the “right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor.”
Those are not the same thing, at all. Kennedy is speaking of a narrowly-tailored legal right. Title II of the CRA creates a narrowly-tailored legal right.
Yours is a very, very broad “elementary” right, when you can’t seem to say what an elementary right even is.
If you think that’s a nitpick, I’d advise you to put some more thought into your position on this.
Why can President Kennedy call what you call a narrowly defined legal right an elementary right before the legal right was established, but when I do, it confuses you.
I am talking about the very same thing except I have added what is the status and similarities of whites and blacks that should be protected in this equal right.
I made a clarification about equal status of the two groups on the buying public side to fend off the notion that the CRA forces a private property owner sell to black people in a way different from selling to white people.
The CRA does not force a gas station owner to sell to blacks who can’t pay for instance.
Do you think these two statements mean the same thing?
“…giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public – hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments.”
All people enjoy “the right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor.”
If not, what makes them different?
And for the nth time, what is an elementary right? I can’t ask Kennedy.
Does Title II of the CRA perfectly enshrine the right you say exists (right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor)? Does Title II do anything the right doesn’t require, or does Title II fail to criminalize all infringements of the right?
QUOTE]I assert that the right you’ve proposed isn’t a right, but a creation of the CRA. -Human Action #188 04-21-2013 08:14 PM 111p0814
[/QUOTE]
The fact is that “perfectly enshrine” are your words not mine.
Do laws against murder stop all murders or criminalize all murders where the victims of murder are deprived of their right to life?
I told you to look up the meaning of ‘elementary’ and the meaning of ‘right’ and there you will have it. You do not need to ask President Kennedy. There is a dictionary for that.
Those two statements do not necessary mean the same thing but mine was not intended to mean exactly the same thing as JFK’s. The point is that neither statement negates the other for the point I have been making.
And that point is that you have said that negroes , prior to 1964 as a minority group did not have right to be treated as equal consumers of products required for interstate travel among other things of necessity and of white-owned services open to the public of entertainment value, etc.
You must therefore disagree according to your assertion in post #188 with the President of the United States who in 1963 saw it as an elementary right that negroes need not endure just because they were a minority, when he said, “I am therefore asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments. This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure. . .”
So is it still a creation of some sorts and not a ‘right’ in your mind?
You asked, “does Title II fail to criminalize all infringements of the right” and I must say it has certainly wiped out the harm that infringement of that right was causing. I haven’t seen a sign on a business front that says “NO N*****S Served Here” anywhere I traveled since the seventies and I lived in Alabama and Tennessee for a time. It has wiped out one major aspect of the arbitrary indignity that so many good black Americans were forced to endure until after the CRA became law.
If you wish to continue down a path of abstract debate about ‘theories of rights’ to make your argument that negroes did not have a right to be treated as equals with the majority when they drove across the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave… and many of them being brave combat veterans of WWII, please continue. I can do that too, except that I’m more interested in down to earth stuff than lofty intellectual debates about things as obvious as the fact that the CRA was a damn good law and the best thing for all Americans’ liberty as it turns out.
I don’t see where your abstract and theoretical arguments hold up very well either.
It was a question, not a statement.
Hey, look at that, you accidentally stumbled onto an area in which these distinctions can be demonstrated.
Why is murder wrong? One possible answer is that there is a natural, inalienable right to life. Another answer is the utilitarian one: murder destabilizes society by provoking reprisals and blood feuds, so the best way to prevent same is to punish every murder.
Whatever the underpinning, it must be consistent and sensible. It must account for things like abortion, self-defense, suicide, the death penalty, triage, and so forth.
Or, you can say that murder is wrong because it’s illegal. That’s fine too, but only works in a framework of purely legal rights.
Here’s an easy example of the contrast: say you live in a repressive dictatorship. Do you have the right to free speech? The natural-rights answer is yes, because it’s inalienable and can only be infringed, never removed. The legal-rights answer is no, because rights are ultimately limited by the actions of others; if a right is denied by law, it does not exist.
I’m just going to ignore the phrase going forward.
It’s a legal right, yes. Nothing more.
I staked out my position very early on: that the CRA infringed upon the Fifth Amendment rights of property owners, without due process. And further, that the economic disincentive to discriminate or segregate would have taken care of the problem without the need for coercion, once segregation laws were removed by the rest of the CRA.
Despite bringing in a rights-based argument that you never had much of a handle on, your position boils down to: the CRA was a good law, and any infringement upon property rights was justified by the benefit to society.
We could have wrapped up with that pages ago.
You’re not really in a position to make that judgment, when you’ve been unable to grasp any of the theory in question.
Do you notice that JFK expressed the idea of “an elementary right” as applying to those who had “a right to be served”?
There is no mention of a reciprocal right that must be addressed for a group of minority or majority servers.
That is my point and it is consistent with what President Kennedy said about ‘elementary rights’.
Your staked out position is not very sturdy. The best response to your concern about property rights of owners comes from Wikipedia
The right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor is a right that the CRA now protects.
You argue that the CRA Section II right did not exist prior to its becoming a legal right and that only natural rights exist independently of laws, or whether infringement occurs.
You fall back to the Fifth Amendment because you think it had already given a “RIGHT” to property owners that the CRA Title II violates and infringes.
When the Fifth Amendment was written there was no issue of discrimination against a racial minority by the majority so that the CRA could not be pondered by its drafters.
The issue of majority discrimination against a racial minority was in fact once legal to an extreme degree when ownership of slaves was protected by the US Constitution before it was eventually abolished.
It is possible that human beings writing ‘legal rights’ laws can get it wrong.
Owned slaves had the ‘right’ to be free and equal even when the legal right was opposed to it.
Your Fifth Amendment argument went down in flames when Moreton Rolleston lost his case.
The CRA does not violate a property owners fifth amendment right just because some think that it does.
Since slavery was a pure and extreme form of discrimination and slaves had a right to be free and equal when the bonds of slavery were severed by the Federal Government why is it so difficult to admit that that right to be free and equal took a big leap with Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and slowly continued to evolve to the CRA of 1964 about a hundred years later?
Why is it such a struggle for you to recognize that the right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor did not exist as our American history evolved?
Why does it have to be a legal right and a bogus legal right that did not exist until the CRA of 1964 created it as you keep saying?
Correction to previous post:
Why is it such a struggle for you to recognize that the right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor **did exist **as our American history evolved?
The useful thing about this thread going in circles is that I can reply to this using only previous posts. Convenience!
No, it doesn’t. The CRA is much narrower than that. It explicitly applies only to the customers of certain qualifying businesses, and only applies to discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Correct.
Pretty sure that racial, ethnic, national-origin, and religious discrimation was around in the 18th century.
Slavery isn’t discrimination in the way that we are using it here, one has nothing to do with the other. Slavery is a whole other kettle of fish.
My point exactly.
Hey, you might understand natural rights after all!
Sometimes the Supreme Court gets it wrong:
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Prigg v. Pennsylvania
Korematsu v. United States
Bowers v. Hardwick
Miller v. California
Plessy v. Ferguson
Did the Fourteenth Amendment argument against segregation laws go down in flames when Homer Plessy lost his case? Perhaps, but it proved right in the end.
It’s a purely subjective matter, that entirely depends on what people think.
Slavery was a legal institution, it depended upon government action. That’s not at all the same as the actions of private individuals. Again, the government can’t violate your free speech rights, but I can try to stifle your speech all I like (barring assault and such).
Because “take away people’s freedom” isn’t the answer to very many problems. It’s not the answer to this one, for instance.
It’s not a bogus legal right, just one that intolerably infringes on another, older, natural AND legal right.
Where the free market can flush away the racist bigots from the business culture there is no need for government intervention. What is wrong with that? A white bigoted farmer who watches his tomatoes go rotten on his roadside stand will think twice about turning down a black family’s cash if one or two happened to be traveling by.
In the rural South in season blacks could grow their own tomatoes so the choice of who to buy from can be left to market forces and laws of supply and demand.
So the Feds were not so big and bad and oppressive against specific discrimination when they passed the narrowly focused CRA.
My words that you keep nitpicking are about rights that were significantly harmed in extremely unequal ways until the CRA was passed.
It’s not a bogus legal right, just one that intolerably infringes on another, older, natural AND legal right. -Human Action.
So probably said many a slave holder when Honest Abe set them free.
I’m glad most of us in the free world are over this concern over Moreton Rolleston’s intolerable suffering at the loss of his older and natural and legal right to engage in public commerce with an intent to harm a specific race of human beings and Americans as if his victims had no right to be treated equal and fair as they traveled about the so called land of the free - from sea to shining sea.
What’s wrong with it is that the free market approach wasn’t tried. The same CRA that removed segregation laws (and various other unconstitutional government practices, like several ways of denying voting rights) also made private-actor discrimination illegal. Freedom was never an option; it was segregate or go to jail; then not segregate or go to jail.
And many a farmer in the Soviet Union when the government confiscated all their farms and livestock. If you have to resort to these sort of unrelated extremes to make your point, perhaps your point isn’t as strong as you believe.
It’s easy for you to dismiss Moreton Rolleston’s rights, because you aren’t Moreton Rolleston. It’s always easy to dismiss or even take away the rights of others. Hopefully you’ll never feel the sting of it happening to you, which still happens in this country.
“Intent to harm a specific race of human beings” and “victims” is pouring it on thick; we’ve been over this. You accepted that the harm itself wasn’t sufficient for a legal remedy, because you accept the same harm when it’s inflicted by reason of rudeness by the customer, or lack of supply, or other acceptable causes. This isn’t like rape or theft, where the act is illegal and destructive; in this case it’s only the motive that is forbidden. You hold out one cause of the same effect, denial of service, to be intolerable, and one only. So it’s disingenuous to point to the harm and not the reason as being what motivates your ire.
I didn’t dismiss them. The Supreme Court dismissed them. Moreton Rolleston dismissed them himself too, when he opened his hotel on Interstate Highway frontage and put up a big bright sign luring complete strangers passing by to come onto his private property and thought he could treat some members of that traveling public as if they were animals with none of the same rights as white human beings.