The Ryan is displaying his usual command of economics.
The economy is a system. An aggregate of markets that we might think of as being possessed in the aggregate by market participants in the widest sense. Or society. Government, being at least in democratic systems the rough proxy for “society” in the aggregate helps manage those markets to ensure that the greatest common good is had.
Thus we have market supervision to protect against various kinds of market failures in which an actor or actors pursuit of self interest, in combination with some form of market power or breakdown, harms other participants and undermines the overall operation of the market.
Well, this is a bit too brief and a bit too facile. I have to complete a project tomorrow, I hope to be able to return and give the purely economic argument – and there is indeed a very strong case-- against Senor Beef’s impoverished understanding of the rational for banning uncommercially justifiable discrimination by economic actors
Of course, this being the poster who tried to argue women’s getting the vote was bad for United States because he perceived that some of his pet ideological positions were undermined by the same one should not expect very much out of this argument.
Boiled down, this is precisely the rationale behind the Heart of Atlanta decision. The thinking was: the negative impact of discrimination on interstate commerce was extensive enough, and detrimental enough, to justify the excercise by Congress of its constitutional power to regulate said interstate commerce. This was held to be true even though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 obviously did impinge upon the property rights of those seeking to discriminate – like the Heart of Atlanta hotel, which sought to remain a “whites only” establishment.
So there was a weighing of the individual rights of the hoteliers (including their property rights) versus the ability to Congress to proscribe certain actions it deemed to detrimentally impact interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court held that of the two, Congress’s rationale for its actions was more compelling. And virtually every court considering Heart of Atlanta since has agreed.
Someone mentioned that it is legal to refuse to lease to any college students, just because they are college students. Why is this allowed? Because college students are more likely to mess up the place? Are businesses allowed to discriminate against someone because they are part of a group that has a high percentage of members with a characteristic that is detrimental to the business?
The right to act in ways that other people consider to be “being an asshole” is a basic, fundamental right. Without that right, democracy is meaningless.
“Apartheid” is a word with a specific meaning, to describe a specific attitude towards another race. The way it has been hijacked to describe any racist policy is inaccurate.
The paradoxical part about those laws is that they are not possible in a society in which the majority is opposed to equality. It’s only when the majority has been convinced of the value of equality that the laws become possible, making the laws unnecessary. The very fact that the laws exist proves that we shouldn’t have the laws.
bnorton:
No, you have a reasonable right on the one hand, and a ridiculous “right” on the other. If I walk into a store, and I say “hey, can someone sell this to me?” and everyone ignores me, I might get annoyed. But I’m certainly not going to call the cops. Next time the waitress takes a bit too long to get to your table, try calling 911. See how interested they are in your “rights” being violated.
That’s a religious “right thing”, not an objective one. Religion has no place in law.
Jodi
Rights are not created by laws!
Are you seriously claiming that anti-discrimination laws have eradicated discrimination?
But why create more holes in the Bill of Rights when the existing holes were sufficient?
DPWhite
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really unable to recognize a moral statement?
So does the government own its citizens as well? What you are advancing is one of the basic tenets of fascism: that private property exists only on the sufferance of the government.
May I assume, then, that I can find this “right to be an asshole” in the Constitution? Third Amendment, isn’t it? (Since who the hell cares about quartering soldiers…)
By the way, I’d like to exercise my right to act in ways that other people consider to be “being an asshole” by coming to your house and taking all your stuff. Without that right, democracy is meaningless.
And what’s that, you say? Theft is illegal? Well:
Perhaps not, but they’re sure as hell enforced by laws.
Apparently you missed what I said above, or didn’t bother to contest it.
A right cannot derive from the labor or expense of another person. “A right to be served by a person who does not want to serve you” is costing them in some manner, and hence, can’t really be a right.
I don’t believe that Congress has the ability to create or destroy rights.
**
And hence you’re limiting property rights and forcing the innkeeper to do something he does not wish to do.
**
Rights are innate. Rights cannot be created by a legislative body.
Rights also cannot derive at the expense of others. You cannot say “Everyone has the right to have a house built for them”, because it requires time, material, and labor from others in order to fulfill that “right”.
**
The idea that “You have to serve me against your will” is a right is silly to me.
**
Congress has written a law which forces people to, in some cases, do what they do not wish to do, and it does this by limiting (or infringing upon) their property rights.
It did not create a right, because legislative bodies have no ability to create rights. They can merely recognize and protect them, or try to suppress them.
**
There’s a conflict of property rights and the government deciding that it would force people to serve who they may not wish to serve, and hire who they may not wish to hire, under threat of legal action or force.
**
You suggest ‘slippery slope’ arguments are invalid.
In any case, if people don’t have the right to descriminate who can use their property, the property isn’t really theirs, I don’t think, it’s just something the government has decided they were gracious enough to let them use. It invalidates the idea of property rights, which were a core principle of this country’s founding.
**
Fair enough, I suppose. Although simply because they codified it and applied it consistently doesn’t inherently suggest it isn’t arbitrary.
**
I’m not so quick to assume that people having control over their own property is a problem.
**
If I am forced to hire or serve you, even though I do not wish to do so, it is certainly derived from my labor.
**
Instead of fixing a social problem, the government forcifully removed individual property rights. What would you consider it?
(Not implying, though, that it’s the government’s responsibility to fix social problems).
**
“The right to be served by someone who does not wish to serve you” is as unrealistic as “The right to have a house built for you”.
**
Actually, that should probably simply be a matter of property rights. All the airlines would privately ban guns on all their flights, and you’d have a reasonable, normal excercise of property rights, rather than a governmental restriction on natural rights.
**
And, of course, this alone can be used to justify a limitation or suppression of any right.
That’s a larger statement that I’m not going to commit to without more thought. I do, however, tend to lean towards the idea that people should be allowed to discriminate, in any way they see fit, when it comes to their own property.
In the thread to which you refer, I merely posed a question. It is inaccurate, and possibly deceitful, to suggest that I declared it was a bad thing that women had the right to vote.
As pointed out by others, it depends on how you define what a “right” is. Most people would define it differently, but let’s not quibble over semantics. What you are really saying is that, as a matter of policy, the government should not force person A to serve person B.
This seems like a pretty radical position to me. A hypothetical: It’s the middle of a cold winter, and the your local gas company decides to boost profits by tripling its charges to the customer for natural gas. Anyone who can’t pay immediately will be cut off. Should the government (and customers) be able to force the gas company to continue serving the public at rates approved by the Board of Public Utilities? Or should the gas company be free to charge whatever price it wants for gas and cut off customers for any reason? Hey, the natural gas is the private property of the gas company, right?
Beef, and Ryan:
I guess I didn’t simplify my definition of the golden rule enough for y’all. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion, so I guess I’ll have to attempt to simplify it again.
“If you treat others poorly you give them every reason to treat you poorly. For society to function, it is best if you treat others as you would wish to be treated.”
An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
The condition of being separated from others; segregation.
Definition 1 is specific to South Africa, so for the purpose of discussing pre-Civil Rights Act America, it can be ignored.
Please explain how definitions 2 and 3 of the word “apartheid” do not apply to pre-1964 America, with particular attention to the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the so-called “separate but equal” doctrine in Plessy and George Wallace’s 1962 Alabama gubernatorial campaign with the slogan “Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!”
N.B. You might, in the future, want to operate under the principle that others have at least as good a grasp of the English language as you do.
Senor Beef. In almost every post you’ve made in this thread, you’ve stated (or attempted to imply):
Anti-discrimination laws have not created rights to be served, or to be put up in a hotel, or to have a house built for you. They have, however, stated that IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO THESE THINGS IN THE UNITED STATES you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc. Nobody is forcing you to open a diner, but if you do, you can’t refuse service to somebody because they are black.
You also continue to say:
Well, here you are just plain wrong. Factually wrong. In your ideology, you may think that the government SHOULDN’T be able to do these things, but to say they don’t is a gross misstatement of the facts and the history of the United States.
I may be off base, but I would be willing to bet that you were not even alive while government-sanctioned segregation was going occurring. Don’t worry, neither was I. However, I took the time to research, learn, and hear the stories of how the “Jim Crow” laws, segregation, and racial hatred did nearly irreparable harm to this country. I suggest you do the same.
Rights don’t even have any meaning beyond the power to enforce them. Of course your private property is held under suffrance of government since government has the power to remove it.
Rights are not absolute, although it could be argued that the concept of (certain) rights are absolute. And the notion that rights are inherent is fair enough but the reality of life is that (despite what certain aspirational documents might say) they are granted.
You are not granted the right to discriminate on the basis of colour. Diddums.
Sorry, pan, but I can channel the response right now.
Quoth The Ryan or Señor Beef:
“No, rights are inherent and God-given and absolute and cannot be granted or removed by governments. Period, end of statement, full stop. You are simply wrong.”
Hard to refute dogma, innit?
How is it costing them? Doesn’t the server get compensated for their labor?
That sounds to me like what Beef is saying. But The People in this land of supposed equality, by way of their government, have decided that if you open a business that promises to render goods & services in exchange for compensation from person A, you must do the same thing (within reason, and as defined & regulated by law) for persons B, C & D.
Unless your “beef” is really with the core assumption of equal rights for all.
Well, according to www.dictionary.com, apartheid also means a policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
The original meaning has nothing at all to do with a ‘specific attitude’ towards a segregrated group. It has everything to do, however, with actions toward a segregrated group.
Sure, everyone should be nice to each other. But what we’re discussing here is: If someone doesn’t live up to your idea of ‘nice’, do you have the government come in and force them to do something by limiting their property rights?
