There’s no way you could provide services or goods on your own property (a property right) without being subject to that rule, then. Which essentially amounts to: “In order to excercise my property right of providing goods and services with my property, I have to submit to limitations on those rights because some congressmen decided to try to fix a racial problem with legislation.”
Which is fine, if you believe that’s a good thing. I question the government coming in to heavy handedly restrict property rights to attempt to fix a social problem.
**
It is very clear that those who founded this country believed rights to be innate. Because later generations decided they were serfs of the government, and that the government could decide for them what rights they could excercise and couldn’t, does not change that principle.
Governments cannot create or destroy rights. They can create or destroy privileges. If everyone here is so convinced that they’re the same thing, then this country is going to hell in a hand basket. Hopefully we’ll be happy little serfs.
I’m not suggesting that large scale racial segregation (particularly by the government) is not a Bad Thing. But I question the forceful, governmentally intrusive, solution.
And we’re all spineless little serfs at the complete control of our government. Gotcha.
The whole idea of a Constitutional Republic is built on the idea that there are innate, unalienable rights. Should this premise be discarded, then the Constitutional Republic will not remain Constitutional or a republic.
**
You speak of privileges. If rights are so flexible and up to arbitrary restriction, then they’re not rights. If you believe we’re all just serfs of our government, who has graciously granted us certain privileges…
Why limit it to color? Are you suggesting I’m racist? Really, I’m just trying to get my right back to discriminate against those damn cripples.
The right to free speech does not cost anyone anything - no one has to listen, no one has to make any effort for you.
The right to ‘be served by anyone, even against their will’ costs the forced labor of the person who does not wish to serve.
**
In general, yes. But the justification of my position is a strong belief in property rights, etc.
**
Equality is a great reason why the government should not be able to discriminate in any fashion along lines of race, disability, etc. However, to extend this to all private businesses (and this is a fairly recent thing, 50 years or so), is a limitation or invalidation of property rights.
I’m not trying to talk about racial segregation here. I think property owners can refuse surface to anyone - white people, black people, green people, young people, old people, people with large foreheads, whatever. They should have the ultimate discretion about who they serve, for whatever reason they wish.
Again, it depends on what you mean by “right.” Perhaps you’d like to define that term, so that we both can (we all can) be clear what we are talking about.
You have in this country a “right” not to be discriminated against on the basis of religion, race, national origin, etc. because Congress said you do. If you don’t like the use of the word “right” in that context, then pick another word – it doesn’t change the fact that Congress can and did by legislative fiat pass a law that had the effect of infringing on the most expansive property rights of others. This is not subject to argument – it’s the fact, jack. Now, you may not like it, but so what? And you may argue that Congress did not have the ability to limit the property rights in question – but that was the issue in Heart of Atlanta, and the Supreme Court said Congress did have that ability.
Yep. Just like when you say to someone “you cannot shout obscenities outside a school” you are “forcing them” to be quiet – despite their right to free speech. Just like when you say to someone “you cannot carry your gun into a federal building” you are “forcing them” to leave their gun outside – arguably despite their right to bear arms. Just like when you say to someone “you cannot smoke peyote buds in public” you are “forcing them” to refrain from toking up – despite their right to freedom of religion. Again, you appear to be arguing that any right (all rights) must exist without limitation or infringement. That simply is not true of any right we have.
Again, the right to not “derive” from anyone else – it derives fromm an Act of Congress. I’m not being sarcastic here, but – you are clear on the meaning of “derive,” right? You’re not using it when another word would do better?
As I have already said, strictly speaking it is not a conflict of rights – it is a conflict of an affirmative right (property) with a prohibition (you cannot discriminate). But what difference does that make? Clearly you understand that the two conflict; that is the premise of your entire OP.
:: Shrug :: Believe what you like. And as I said, if you don’t like the use of the word “right” in this context, pick another one. But it is indisputable that Congress did prohibit discrimination on the basis of certain enumerated bases in places of public accommodation, via the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If you are going to argue that Congress did not have the ability to do that, then you’re going to have to articulate why then couldn’t do that. Because they did.
Yes. For like the fourth time, yes. There is an obvious conflict between the right of the innkeeper/discriminator and the right (prohibition) of the person the innkeeper seeks to discriminate against. No one is saying the discriminator is not being forced to do something he doesn’t want to do, i.e., refrain from discriminating. He very clearly is.
Rights are innate, huh? And where do they come from, then? Who decides what rights you have or do not have? Because I hereby declare that the right to be free from discrimination is also “innate” and Congress was merely formalizing that pre-existing right through the Civil Rights Act. Who are you to tell me I am wrong?
Once again – :: shrug ::. I have a right (legislatively set forth, innate or not) to expect you to refrain from discriminating against me. If that includes serving me when you’d rather not, so be it. Your opinion that such a result is “silly” is just that – your opinion.
Fine. Then consider that Congress was “merely recognizing” a pre-existing right to be free from discrimination. Doesn’t change the analysis one iota.
Yep. That’s what it is, alright.
So anything less that an unfettered right constitutes no right? Surely you see that logically this makes no sense. If I give you a slice of pie, and not the whole pie, would you say you have no pie? If this is your position (anything less than everything equals nothing) then allow me to advise you that you have no rights at all. None. Because every right you have is subject to some limitation – if that means the right doesn’t exist, then none of them exist.
True 'nough. But you can judge the arbitrariness of the list by reviewing it; it is not on its face arbitrary. It contains most of the places you would reasonably consider to be accommodating the public – restuarants, hotels, theaters, libraries, etc.
I asked “Can you think of another way to fix it?” to which you reply “I’m not so quick to assume that people having control over their own property is a problem.”
That, of course, is not the problem I was referring to – I was referring to racial and other types of discrimination. So I ask again: If your position is that Congress cannot step in to rectify that problem, then can you think of another way to fix it?
Incorrect. Please look up the term “derive.” It may be that the exercise of your right compels someone else to do something, but the right does not “derive” from that compelled action. Surely you can see that, logically, it could not. You cannot exercise a right that doesn’t exist until it has been exercised.
A third time :: Shrug ::. This is, apparently, your opinion. I would submit that the fact that being free from discrimination is not “unrealistic” but is instead “realistic” is shown by the fact the right exists and is, therefore, real.
Of course it can. And is. And does. You apparently want to take it upon yourself to decide that the creation (or, if you like, recognition) of this right is “unrealistic” and “unjustified” or even “silly.” But that is your thesis to prove, and does not become true simply because you said so. Saying so just makes it your opinion.
Well, if your position is that the government should never force person A to serve person B, my hypo shows that your position is very extreme. (Your position is also contrary to years of established precedent. Long before the civil rights era, public utilities/common carriers had a certain “duty to serve.”)
If you think that public utilities are somehow different or special, I would agree with you. But that only demonstrates my earlier point - that it is proper for the government to treat certain kinds of property differently in terms of the level of regulation applied.
Please give it some thought and see if you still think that all property should be treated the same.
Senor Beef, I think you are looking at property rights too much in isolation.
You build your diner in order to make money. To make said money, you must take in foodstuffs, then sell them (prepared) to diners at a higher price.
And how does this happen? Your tomatoes get shipped to you from California. Your beef comes from Nebraska. Your pickles come from Pittsburgh.
Your diners drive to your store or walk in off the sidewalk.
IOW, the profitability of your diner is utterly dependent on the government-provided free flow of goods and people. Your foodstuffs get delivered to you on public roads. Your customers come to you on public roads or on public sidewalks.
The government, in exchange for allowing you to use its property, imposes a covenant - you use our property, and you can’t discriminate when you take the foodstuffs you received through the use of our roads and serve it to diners who also came to give you money by use of our roads.
It’s that simple. The government is exercising its property rights (described in the Constitution as “regulation of interstate commerce.”)
Your property and your property rights are, without the aid of the government, valueless. If you want to make a profit from the use of the government’s roads, you have to obey the rules the government imposes on the use of said roads.
Why don’t you elaborate a bit on the philosophical basis of your theory of rights? It seems hopelessly stuck in the 18th century.
You keep making blanket statements like:
**
You should be aware that all of these propositions are highly debatable, at best. At the very least there are “positive rights” and “negative rights” Positive rights are, indeed, derived from a claim on the active cooperation of others. Nor does the Lockeian view of the social contract necessarily preclude limiting — or rather defining — property rights to preclude societally damaging discrimination.
In any case, you don’t actually believe that rights cannot be dependent on the required cooperation of others. You are essentially advocating a “state of nature” and we all know what that’s like. For example, defending your property rights depends on the cooperation of society, whether willing or unwilling. Ditto the common defense, etc., etc. Philosophically, being required to pay taxes under the social contract is no different than being required to allow your property to be used in other ways.
You quoted my statement that rights are not created by laws, so obviously you saw it. Yet apparently you didn’t bother reading it.
The right to be an asshole does not imply the right for assholes to do whatever they want, anymore than the right to be a Christian implies a right for Christians to do whatever they want. Since you were unable to understand my original statement, let me reword it:
I’m saying “the government does not have the right to abridge private property rights just because it feels like it”. You seem to be saying “the government does have the power to abridge private property rights just because it feels like it”.
Those statements do not contradict each other.
Hamlet
If you think he is factually wrong, then at least one of us is grossly misunderstanding his position. My understanding of his position is that the government cannot change what is moral and immoral for it to do. For you to say his beliefs about morality are “factually wrong” is absurd.
andros
[qoute]Hard to refute dogma, innit?
[/quote]
That word has deragatory connotations. There is nothing close minded about my position.
While an argument could be made that such a contract would be valid, that is not what’s happening, except perhaps in some metaphorical sense. And I doubt whether a contract specifying how a third party can act would stand up (the trucking company is the one that’s dealing directly with the government property).
::: wonders what the effect of saying the words “substantive due process” would be ::::
We turn into pumpkins! Actually, I wonder why you think that would produce a “train wreck effect”?
While the Commerce Clause provided the U.S. Supreme Court in Heart of Atlanta with grounds to sustain the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that doesn’t mean the Court did not look at other reasons put forth by the innkeepers as reason to strike down the Act – it did look at them, and rejected them. This includes the Due Process Clause, of which the Court said:
[quote]
Nor does the Act deprive appellant of liberty or property under the Fifth Amendment. The commerce power invoked here by the Congress is a specific and plenary one authorized by the Constitution itself. The only questions are: (1) whether Congress had a rational basis for finding that racial discrimination by motels affected commerce, and (2) if it had such a basis, whether the means it selected to eliminate that evil are reasonable and appropriate. If they are, appellant has no “right” to select its guests as it sees fit, free from governmental regulation.
There is nothing novel about such legislation. Thirty-two States now have it on their books either by statute or executive order and many cities provide such regulation. Some of these Acts go back fourscore years. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that such laws do not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps the first such holding was in the Civil Rights Cases themselves, where Mr. Justice Bradley for the Court inferentially found that innkeepers, “by the laws of all the States, so far as we are aware, are bound, to the extent of their facilities, to furnish proper accommodation to all unobjectionable persons who in good faith apply for them.”
Heart of Atlanta, 379 U.S. at 258-59 (footnote and citation omitted).
That’s true. And I don’t believe I ever made the argument that every right is absolute in every single case. However, I do believe there has to be compelling state interest, a rational basis, and minimal intrusion involved in any restriction of any right.
In this particular case, I believe the government was overly invasive of the right to property, with the intent to fix a social problem, which I’m not sure is it’s job in the first place.
**
I mean to say that the ‘function’ or ‘product’ of a right cannot be had at the expense of another person. You don’t have a right to oral sex, because no one can be obligated by a right. (Yes, I’m just making up example rights at random. Whee.)
**
That’s fine. I suppose I was responding to other’s who suggested that there was a right not to be discriminated against.
**
I’m not so sure they did or didn’t have the power. So long as the Supreme Court agrees with them, they can pretty much fuck us over in any way they choose. So the debate there is a lot more sticky.
What I am questioning is whether or not Congress should use a broad invasion (and that’s what I see this as) of property rights in order to try a social problem - a problem it wasn’t obligated to fix in the first place.
**
I still don’t like the use of the term ‘right’ to describe a restriction on another right.
**
Rights are inherent in being human. If you like, they come from God. Otherwise, they just stem from nature. As to who decides what rights are - thats a whole different debate.
**
Your ‘right’ has a cost to other people to excercise. People have to be forced to do what they do not wish to do for your ‘right’ to be fulfilled. Hence, I don’t believe it can be a right.
Otherwise, you can pretty much call anything Congress does as a right. It’s an ambiguous issue.
**
It is my opinion.
But tell me how your ‘right’ is logically different from saying “I have a right to a house. Go get some wood and build me one.”?
**
Again, a ‘cost’ issue. Build me a house.
**
You’re right. I take back what I said. It was too broad.
**
The list of things that you couldn’t discriminate for are arbitrary. I can’t discriminate against people because of age - but I can because of hair color.
[QUOTE]
**
I asked “Can you think of another way to fix it?” to which you reply “I’m not so quick to assume that people having control over their own property is a problem.”
That, of course, is not the problem I was referring to – I was referring to racial and other types of discrimination. So I ask again: If your position is that Congress cannot step in to rectify that problem, then can you think of another way to fix it?
[QUOTE]
**
Social change? Education? I’m not sure. It’s a bit of a tall order to ask me how to fix racism. I’m just saying that I’m not sure that A) It’s Congress’ job to try to fix the problem, and B) that restricting property rights is the proper way to do it if it is their problem to fix.
**
To clarify, I meant that the ‘product’ of the right - the actual labor - is derived from someone else. To be less confusing, in order for your ‘right’ to be fulfilled, it requires (unwanted) labor from me.
**
Again, to be free from discrimination, you must force me to do something I don’t want to do. If you believe that someone has the right to force another person to do something against their will - that can be your belief - but it’s fundamentally at odd’s with my idea of a right.
That’s a good point, but in this case, we’re not talking about a private citizen, but the state’s obligation to give you representation should they choose to impose a criminal trial on you.
That’s true… and to be honest, I’m not sure exactly how public utilities work. Aren’t they subsidized and publically funded to a certain extent?
I think I probably came off a bit more absolutist than I meant to be. I seem to sound as if I didn’t think any right could be restricted in any way, ever.
Rather, I question the government limiting my right to discriminate on my property - to try to fix a social problem.
