decentralize government and conservative anarchist or libertarian

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Again I have stated that the act of buying gasoline is not a ‘right’ to any human being on earth. But a society’s racial minority both morally and constitutionally must be given equal status with that society’s majority to an equal opportunity to purchase gasoline on a first come first serve basis. To deny that equal opportunity on a basis of race is an injury to that group being denied and harmed.

Constitutionally…? Please elaborate.

As an aside, we’ve been discussing this purely in terms of whites discriminating against blacks, but the law in question doesn’t work in terms of majorities and minorities, nor purely in terms of the historically disadvantaged. It’s just as illegal for me refuse to sell to Christians at God Is A Myth Gas ‘n’ Go, or to deny service to British immigrants at Still Mad About 1812 Hotel, or turn away whites at the Must Be Darker Than Cardboard Diner. So, I’ll toss that out: is it equally wrong for me to refuse to serve Christians?

Back on point, though, another difference we’re having here is that I see equality as a legal question; that is, the law (and the government that creates and enforces it) must treat everyone equally regardless of race, color, etc., but private citizens do not. This seems pretty well accepted, no one’s proposing that we lock up racists for being racist, or waive the right to trial for any accused criminals that also happen to own Mein Kampf. I can refuse to associate with any foreigners, or Christians, or Asian-Americans, and it just makes me a jerk.

But some suggest that, under certain circumstances, private citizens must practive legal equality or become criminals, and that’s where we part.

@NotfooledbyW

Do you agree that a human being is harmed when denied an equal opportunity to put gas in his car if the supply is there so he cannot get to his destination based solely on his race. It is harm to be out of gas and stranded while watching the White Folks filling up their cars doing business as usual?

Yes, but I don’t agree that the proper remedy is an involuntary transaction.

@NotfooledbyW

I will respond to the rest as time permits.

Sure thing, I’m a bit pressed for time myself. Trying to keep up as best I can.

@iiandyiiii

They could, they just couldn’t violate Title II. I don’t see what the problem is.

I meant Whiteville as a town where folks have that gentleman’s agreement mentioned earlier, to only sell homes to whites, only serve whites, and so on. So, the choice is either don’t have a gas station, or not have a Whiteville. Which is exactly what the law was designed to stop, and I understand that.

@iiandyiiii

Which brings up a question- suppose Title II was tossed out. In what specific ways does the country get better? What good things come out of getting rid of Title II?

Hmmmm. Well, it would represent a strengthening of property rights, and the view that equality is a matter for government, not private citizens. That’s it, really. This would have to be balanced against undesired outcomes, i.e. Whiteville. How likely that is in April 2013 is hard to know, and ties in the the larger question of where’d we’d be if the CRA had removed laws that required segregation, but didn’t mandate desegregation, which is unknowable.

Bear in mind that it’s the nature of principles and ideals to, at times, produce uncomfortable outcomes. Valuing free speech highly, as I do, it made me rather uncomfortable to see Jenny McCarthy on “The Doctors” urging mothers to not get their children vaccinated, knowing that people were listening to her and that children were going to be harmed as a result. I value freedom of assembly as well, and yet was appalled at the Occupy Movement.

That isn’t a basis to toss out the principle, unless its costs outweigh its benefits.

[iiandyiiii]

@Human_Action

Hmmmm. Well, it would represent a strengthening of property rights, and the view that equality is a matter for government, not private citizens. That’s it, really. This would have to be balanced against undesired outcomes, i.e. Whiteville. How likely that is in April 2013 is hard to know, and ties in the the larger question of where’d we’d be if the CRA had removed laws that required segregation, but didn’t mandate desegregation, which is unknowable.

Bear in mind that it’s the nature of principles and ideals to, at times, produce uncomfortable outcomes. Valuing free speech highly, as I do, it made me rather uncomfortable to see Jenny McCarthy on “The Doctors” urging mothers to not get their children vaccinated, knowing that people were listening to her and that children were going to be harmed as a result. I value freedom of assembly as well, and yet was appalled at the Occupy Movement.

That isn’t a basis to toss out the principle, unless its costs outweigh its benefits.

Fair enough. I think the benefits of prohibiting this sort of discrimination (as Title II does) outweigh the cost (which I think is pretty tiny).

[Human_Action]

@iiandyiiii

Fair enough. I think the benefits of prohibiting this sort of discrimination (as Title II does) outweigh the cost (which I think is pretty tiny).

I will cheerfully concede that the bulk of the cost of this particular law is at the theoretical level; precedent in the way it creates quasi-public property, and getting people to accept the idea that the state may force transactions to which one party doesn’t consent.

If I had to choose a group to bear the weight of these costs, racists and bigots will do.

[sweat209]

@Human_Action

I think the large majority of people are able to identify what ideology they follow. You won’t find right-wing conservatives of the Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan schools calling themselves libertarians. The Tea Party is a special case, in that it’s a broad, informal coalition of multiple viewpoints.

I’m talking about conservatives that talk about big government and keep going on and on , please lower my tax money to stop feeding this big government this socialist government or welfare state.

But normally when they talk about big government they are anti- socialist government or welfare state but support big police force , large prison population and vice laws so on.

So yes it laughable

Depends on which laws you mean. Laws mandating segregation? Libertarians would oppose them. Laws prohibiting discrimination by a private business? Libertarians would oppose those too. So, saying that libertarians are anti-Civil Rights movement only makes sense if you’re referring to that second type of law.

So how do you deal with the civil rights issues in the past where blacks have to eat at the back of the restaurant or outside or cannot go to white only school?

I’m sure all people support the end to segregation today but they do have point if the feds can pass laws to mandating the end too segregation!! You can say goodbye to state rights has this well opens up foundation for feds to tell state what they can or cannot do.So look for more laws in future on other issues.

Just this past election there was petition of some southern US states to pull away because of the fraud electoral system a president can go to west coat , north and swing states and get in :o o:o not to say government on the federal level trying to push abortion , game marriage and discrimination laws over state rights .o:o This is causing issues again of north vs south and causing a movement of this tea party , conservative and libertarian that probably not true libertarian that want less power at the federal level and smaller government and more of state rights.

[sweat209]

@Human_Action

That second-class status was imposed by law. Lifting those laws was admirable and just.

Libertarians love slavery, all right, it’s right there in the name. Seriously, remember two posts ago, where you quoted me saying that infringement was justified in the event of harm done to others?

I think in past the US was more classic liberal than Libertarian.

On economic issues they where very much no place for government and before FDR very anti welfare state ( no welfare state , even the fact the US and Canada welfare state today is joke compared to Europe welfare state).

When it came to social issues very conservatives .You dare not talk about homosexuals ,abortion , common law living , sex out wedlock , free love , sex and women rights.

You probably be hanged back than.

[NotfooledbyW]

@NotfooledbyW

Do you agree that a human being is harmed when denied an equal opportunity to put gas in his car if the supply is there so he cannot get to his destination based solely on his race. It is harm to be out of gas and stranded while watching the White Folks filling up their cars doing business as usual.

@Human_Action

Yes, but I don’t agree that the proper remedy is an involuntary transaction.

If you agree there is harm committed by the actions of a property owner you must agree that the government has a right if not duty to intervene with coercive remedies that are no different than if the owner hauled off and smacked a customer up the side of the head with an axe handle for no reason whatsover.

Just because the owner committed an act of malicious physical harm on his own property does not immunize him from being prosecuted by the government.

The same goes for malicious harm of a non-violent nature such as withholding service on a basis of race. Property ownership does not protect the owner. The public is protected from the owner and should be.

[Human_Action]

@sweat209

I’m talking about conservatives that talk about big government and keep going on and on , please lower my tax money to stop feeding this big government this socialist government or welfare state.

But normally when they talk about big government they are anti- socialist government or welfare state but support big police force , large prison population and vice laws so on.

So yes it laughable

Right, mainstream conservatives, and the Republican Party in particular, aren’t actually interested in small government. Rather, they want a large government that spends money on the things they support, rather than the things the Democrats support.

To some degree, this is just a flaw with democracy. Spending earns votes, so spending is what we get.

@sweat209

So how do you deal with the civil rights issues in the past where blacks have to eat at the back of the restaurant or outside or cannot go to white only school?

Well, if segregation isn’t mandated, you could open an integrated restaurant, and take advantage of all the extra customers, and laugh all the way to the bank. State and local governments knew that this would work, so they made segregation a legal requirement.

Seperate public schools should be illegal, per the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.

@sweat209

I’m sure all people support the end to segregation today but they do have point if the feds can pass laws to mandating the end too segregation!! You can say goodbye to state rights has this well opens up foundation for feds to tell state what they can or cannot do.So look for more laws in future on other issues.

Post-Fourteenth Amendment, the states are bound by the Bill of Rights. This isn’t a slippery-slope that results in the end of states’ rights, IMHO.

@sweat209

Just this past election there was petition of some southern US states to pull away because of the fraud electoral system a president can go to west coat , north and swing states and get in :o o:o not to say government on the federal level trying to push abortion , game marriage and discrimination laws over state rights .o:o This is causing issues again of north vs south and causing a movement of this tea party , conservative and libertarian that probably not true libertarian that want less power at the federal level and smaller government and more of state rights.

Ugh, not the secession petition again. That’s bunk.

@sweat209

I think in past the US was more classic liberal than Libertarian.

Correct, we’ve never had a libertarian government.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

If you agree there is harm committed by the actions of a property owner you must agree that the government has a right if not duty to intervene with coercive remedies that are no different than if the owner hauled off and smacked a customer up the side of the head with an axe handle for no reason whatsover.

Just because the owner committed an act of malicious physical harm on his own property does not immunize him from being prosecuted by the government.

The same goes for malicious harm of a non-violent nature such as withholding service on a basis of race. Property ownership does not protect the owner. The public is protected from the owner and should be.

There’s harm committed if the owner refuses service because the customer is being a jerk, or if the owner promised his last 10 gallons of fuel to a friend, or irresponsibly forgot to order more fuel and ran out, or failed to seal his tanks and let water leak into the fuel. The mere fact that one party has suffered harm is not the end of discussion, in tort law or in common sense.

Would any of the above (customer is a jerk, etc), which clearly harm the customer in exactly the same way as your example (customer wants to buy fuel, is unable to due to the owner’s actions) demand that the government intervene? Why or why not?

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

There’s harm committed if the owner refuses service because the customer is being a jerk, or if the owner promised his last 10 gallons of fuel to a friend, or irresponsibly forgot to order more fuel and ran out, or failed to seal his tanks and let water leak into the fuel. The mere fact that one party has suffered harm is not the end of discussion, in tort law or in common sense.

Would any of the above (customer is a jerk, etc), which clearly harm the customer in exactly the same way as your example (customer wants to buy fuel, is unable to due to the owner’s actions) demand that the government intervene? Why or why not?

The owner can refuse service within Civil Rights Laws if the customer’s behavior or actions warrant it. The owner thus cannot be harmed or penalized as you suggest. The owner simply cannot refuse service on the basis of race. White or black customers cannot expect to be served while being a jerk. That is not the issue here.

If an owner honestly wishes to sell his last ten gallons to his friend then he should provide notice or put a sign on the pump that no gas is for sale to the general public at that time. There is no civil rights violation if he does that.

It is also not a violation to run out gas and not sell to the public for that reason. Can you cite and owner being prosecuted for putting a sign on his pumps - NO GAS? There is no harm to anyone if that happens except loss of revenue to the owner and that I’d not something the government would inject itself into the matter.

Same with leaky tanks, except while no civil rights violations have occurred the owner may get a visit from the EPA. He had no civil right to pollute the ground water that may transverse his private property.

There is no harm to the owner in any of your scenarios. If am incorrect about any of this, hopefully you will cite some specifics as to why.

Since there is no harm to the customer on a civil rights basis as far as I see it right now, I don’t see the need to answer your question except as much as that is the answer. No one would ask the Feds to intervene nor expect them to.

I have often explained that getting a service from a private owner is not a right. I will reiterate that being treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor, (no jerks allowed or tolerated in the groups) is a right.

If unequal treatment based solely upon the matter of race or national origin is committed by a private business owner he is committing harm toward one group that he does not commit to the other public group, then and only then is it proper and justified for the Federal government to intervene.

[emacknight]

@NotfooledbyW

If unequal treatment based solely upon the matter of race or national origin is committed by a private business owner he is committing harm toward one group that he does not commit to the other public group, then and only then is it proper and justified for the Federal government to intervene.

Let’s turn this around for a moment, and have the owner be black, and the customer be white.

If the customer refuses to buy gas because the station is owned by a black guy, is he causing the owner harm?

And if you answer yes, and he is causing harm, is it proper and justified for the Federal government to intervene and force the white guy to buy the black guy’s gas?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

The owner can refuse service within Civil Rights Laws if the customer’s behavior or actions warrant it. The owner thus cannot be harmed or penalized as you suggest. The owner simply cannot refuse service on the basis of race. White or black customers cannot expect to be served while being a jerk. That is not the issue here.

If an owner honestly wishes to sell his last ten gallons to his friend then he should provide notice or put a sign on the pump that no gas is for sale to the general public at that time. There is no civil rights violation if he does that.

It is also not a violation to run out gas and not sell to the public for that reason. Can you cite and owner being prosecuted for putting a sign on his pumps - NO GAS? There is no harm to anyone if that happens except loss of revenue to the owner and that I’d not something the government would inject itself into the matter.

Same with leaky tanks, except while no civil rights violations have occurred the owner may get a visit from the EPA. He had no civil right to pollute the ground water that may transverse his private property.

There is no harm to the owner in any of your scenarios. If am incorrect about any of this, hopefully you will cite some specifics as to why.

Since there is no harm to the customer on a civil rights basis as far as I see it right now, I don’t see the need to answer your question except as much as that is the answer. No one would ask the Feds to intervene nor expect them to.

I have often explained that getting a service from a private owner is not a right. I will reiterate that being treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor, (no jerks allowed or tolerated in the groups) is a right.

If unequal treatment based solely upon the matter of race or national origin is committed by a private business owner he is committing harm toward one group that he does not commit to the other public group, then and only then is it proper and justified for the Federal government to intervene.

That’ll do. The point was, the fact that the customer is harmed by being unable to buy gas isn’t enough, as you readily admit, other factual circumstances with the exact same outcome (customer wants to buy gas, and cannot) aren’t regulated, nor is anyone calling for them to be.

So, mere harm isn’t enough.

The key distinction for you appears to be the basis the owner uses to determine whom to sell gas to. Some bases (customer’s a jerk, gas promised to someone else) are fine, others (customer’s race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion) are not.

Considering that it’s not my gas, I don’t see it as my place (or, by proxy, the government’s) to tell the person who does own the gas how they get to decide how and to whom to sell it.

As for…

@NotfooledbyW

being treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor, (no jerks allowed or tolerated in the groups) is a right.

Is this right created by the CRA (or is it a natural right?)? Because it’s not in the Constitution. Further, the rights enshrined in the Constitution apply to the government, not to fellow citizens.

[NotfooledbyW]

@emacknight

Let’s turn this around for a moment, and have the owner be black, and the customer be white.

If the customer refuses to buy gas because the station is owned by a black guy, is he causing the owner harm?

And if you answer yes, and he is causing harm, is it proper and justified for the Federal government to intervene and force the white guy to buy the black guy’s gas?

My answer is no. If you need/want an explanation, let me know.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

My answer is no. If you need/want an explanation, let me know.

I’d like one, even if emacknight doesn’t.

[OurLordPeace]

Property is theft.

NotFooledByW, why do you say anarchists are absent from the political scene?

[emacknight]

@NotfooledbyW

My answer is no. If you need/want an explanation, let me know.

I’d love to hear it.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

Is this right created by the CRA (or is it a natural right?)? Because it’s not in the Constitution.

It is a right that existed since the time that humans have attempted to be civilized. It is an ‘elemental’ right that is grounded in morality and the right for all humans to have dignity.

Many Constitutionalists would swear that our rights come from God.

But they would say this elemental right for black folks would not come from their God.

I don’t believe that human rights come from God, but I also do not believe that humanity needs to find them in the Constitution to be able to figure out that they belong there.

It need not be in the Constitution to be a right. Africans were slaves when the Constitution was written. Do rights that should exist not exist, because the were not an issue that the framers of the Constitution would be concerned with or could not comprehend.

Perhaps JFK put it best just before he was assassinated:

“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. . .”

[NotfooledbyW]

@OurLordPeace

Property is theft. NotFooledByW, why do you say anarchists are absent from the political scene?

Is this what you are referring to:

American leftists Marxists anarchists left the American domestic scene long before the outbreak of WWII. -Ntfldbw 04-05-2013 05:25 AM 095a0525

Are you an anarchist?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Just spitballing here - isn’t a typical American likelier to enjoy more personal freedom if it is assured by the Federal government that he or she would probably get from any state government electable in Texas, Kansas, Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi… the whole South, basically?

[Human_Action]

@Bryan_Ekers

Just spitballing here - isn’t a typical American likelier to enjoy more personal freedom if it is assured by the Federal government that he or she would probably get from any state government electable in Texas, Kansas, Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi… the whole South, basically?

Depends on which freedoms you mean.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

It is a right that existed since the time that humans have attempted to be civilized. It is an ‘elemental’ right that is grounded in morality and the right for all humans to have dignity.

This being “the right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor”, correct?

Is there a difference between elemental rights and natural ones?

@NotfooledbyW

Many Constitutionalists would swear that our rights come from God.

If they’re calling themselves Constitutionalists, I’d wager that they believed in legal rights, not natural ones, so I highly doubt they’d swear that.

@NotfooledbyW

But they would say this elemental right for black folks would not come from their God.

I don’t believe that human rights come from God, but I also do not believe that humanity needs to find them in the Constitution to be able to figure out that they belong there.

It need not be in the Constitution to be a right. Africans were slaves when the Constitution was written. Do rights that should exist not exist, because the were not an issue that the framers of the Constitution would be concerned with or could not comprehend.

Well, we have a Ninth Amendment for exactly this reason.

Getting back to something from earlier, if you read the Bill of Rights, you’ll see that it restricts what the government, and not private citizens, may do. This is also the case with unenumerated rights, such as the right to privacy and the right to send one’s children to private school.

You now advocate the existence of a right that applies to private citizens. Are there any other rights like this?

@NotfooledbyW

Perhaps JFK put it best just before he was assassinated:

“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. . .”

That argues for a “created by the CRA” interpretation, rather than a right that’s as old as civilization.