Easily, under any one of a number of theories of justice. I was hoping that, at least, you or Senor Beef would respond with a citation to Nozick.
I’m quite sure you believe in your morality. What of it? Why should I or anyone else believe in your morality? If you are simply going to assert that property rights should be absolute then there is no discussion here. Yes, if you assume that property rights are absolute and that it is “immoral” for the government to infringe on them, then it is “immoral” to have to pay taxes or to have to do any one of a thousand other things that were are regularly required to do as members of society.
You are basing your entire position on your morality yet you are unwilling to defend – or even explain – the proposition from which you reason. What you are doing is the logical equivalent of saying “Assume the moon is made of cheese. Someone tell me why I can’t make pizzas out of moon rocks!”
If you are unwilling to explain your theory of rights, then I am equally free to respond that the government can invade your property rights because they can. “Might makes right” is a theory of rights, though not, intellectually speaking, a particularly compelling one.
But no one’s asking to force the governent to allow the use of the roads. The governent has expressed absolutely no interest in denying the use of their roads. If the governent were to say “stop discriminating or you can’t use our roads”, you’d sorta have a case, but that never happened. Nor has any business owner signed a contract allowing the governent to tell them what to do. As I said, you can say that, metaphorically speaking, there is a contract, but literally speaking, the governent has not agreed to a contract. The business has not agreed to a contract. There is no contract. If you insist that there is one, I’d like to see a copy of it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you’re right. What the government said was “you cannot use our roads to gain profit if you are going to discriminate.” It’s called the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
And if you want to see the contract, it’s called the U.S. constitution. The Commerce Clause sets out the U.S. government’s property interest in the roads, waterways, and other means of commerce.
In this analogy, the trucker is your agent - he is on the road at your behest.
Mr. X cannot direct or induce a third party to violate the easement contract, much as Mr. Diner Owner cannot induce or direct third parties.
Your example is silly.
In the same contract (the Constitution), an exception is carved out for religious worship.
Furthermore, the Constitution delimits Congress’ property rights over the roadways so that it may only control conduct substantially affecting interstate commerce.
That’s about right, so long as what the people are doing substantially affects interstate commerce.
You apparently disagree with the current law’s rationale.
that is no reason, however, to disobey it. I obey laws everyday with underlying rationales with which I do not agree.
I am not in the habit of citing other people’s opinion as if it proved my position. Another person’s opinion is an opinion, nothing more.
I never said that property rights are absolute. Not in the sense that you mean.
It is not a type of proposition that can be defended. It just is.
No it’s not. My position does not contradict any established facts, and your implication that it does is immoral. And no, I’m not going to present a cite for that claim either.
My intent was not to induce prostration, but to prompt an explanation of how that is relevant.
Is that a quote or a paraphrase?
Where in the CRA does it say that?
I think that it is quite safe to say that Senor Beef’s hypothetical business was not a signatory to that.
The terms you describe do not appear in the Constitution.
Not anymore than the supermarket sells bananas at my bequest. The trucker is not my agent in the legal sense, nor any other sense which would be relevant to your argument.
But Mr. Diner Owner is the third party. The trucker is the second party.
As is an exception for private property.
The commerce clause has been stretched so wide that religious worship would fit quite easily.
That is not an acceptable response. If there is something in the case that addresses my argument, then quote it.
That post was regarding the SOCAS view of the commerce class, while I was speaking of Congress’ view. This may be simply a function of my own ignorance, but my impression is the SOCAS often does not grant cert regarding this issue, making COngress’ view the important one. For instance, in California, the state claims that medicinal marijuana is legal, while the federal governent says that it’s not. Has there been any test case to see if drugs grown in California and smoked in California fall under the comerce clause?
Fair enough. You don’t see anything wrong with the state deciding that it can limit rights without compelling state interest?
**
That’s what I was saying, yes. And I know it’s not legal, but in a practical sense, people would do it if they were that intent on discrimination by those standards.
**
No, I didn’t mean that.
**
To have a right to force someone goes something like this:
“Hey, I’d like you to provide me with this service.”
“Sorry, I do not wish to provide you with this service.”
“To bad. I’m allowed to force you against your will. It’s my right.”
I don’t have a very clear, concise view of what I consider a right - and my view mostly agrees with the 18th century view that this country was founded on (and therefore obviously must be inherently archaic and wrong) - but one part of my beliefs is that a right cannot require the labor of someone else, who may or may not want to give it. You don’t have the right to force anyone to do anything in my book.
**
Although there doesn’t seem to be any real practical difference between our two views on this, I still find it very important to seperate rights, privileges, and government powers on a philosophical level. For that matter, I think if everyone did that, we wouldn’t be gradually losing our rights as we are now.
The government has the power to restrict you from causing significant harm to interstate commerce (I’ll just accept it as a given that this is a case of that). In that effect, it creates limitations, created by government powers (not rights) to regulate who the business owner can serve.
To say that anything strictly denied by the government automatically creates an affirmative right doesn’t sit with my (archaic, inherently wrong ) view of rights.
You have the idea that a limitation by the government creates an opposite affirmative right. That’s fine, that’s your view. In most cases, I’d say that creates a privilege. The difference may seem trivial, but it’s quite important to me.
**
I was just trying to say that because things are done the legal way doesn’t necesarily mean they’re right, moral, or whatever.
**
I see that. I’m not sure I agree - that the invasion is alright, rather than that it affects discrimination to some extent.
**
If Congress changes it’s mind, and repeals the law, do you no longer have that right? By your definition, yes. By my definition, rights are inherent and unchangable.
**
I’ll concede that to an extent. You’re right, it’ll affect discrimination, but not prejudice. But then again, you’re right if you agree that their motivation was economic.
**
Power. State entities do not have rights.
**
None of the rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution derive from the labor of others - except the 6th, as someone pointed out - but that’s an exception in that it forces the state to provide defense for you should it place the burden of a trial on you - and in that case, the person volunteers. Anyway, I’d say that the idea that rights cannot force other people to do things is consistent with the Constitution.
**
How can an argument of rights be anything but opinions, with the logic behind them? I’ve stated that I don’t believe anyone has a right to force anyone to do anything else, and I’m not sure what else I can do.
**
I suppose so.
**
I gave my opinions on what I think rights are, and I think they match the definition used to write the Constitution.
And where do you get “If we use your ‘no force’ definiton, we wouldn’t have any rights at all”?
Does the right to free speech require forcing someone else to do something? Right to assembly? Right against unreasonable searches and seizures?
**
Which is to say: “We can found a country on the idea of inalienable rights, which no majority can strip from people… and then change what those are, beacuse the majority think it’s fashinable to do so.”
Seems inherently contradicting to me, but hey…
**
I’m saying that they’re analogous.
“Build me a house.”
“I don’t want to.”
“Too bad, I have a right to force you to do it.”
“Serve me in your business.”
“I don’t want to.”
“To bad, I have a right to force you to do it.”
**
You’re right.
**
Sure, see: “Will refusing to serve college students lead to the apocalypse?” Smith, 1992.
**
It isn’t up to me, true. I’m just trying to apply what I think are the principles (of rights) that the country was founded upon.
There aren’t any rights specifically covered in the Constitution that include the ability to force other people to do what they don’t want to do.
**
Fair enough. I think that my view of rights is pretty consistent with the view this country was founded on, but, I can, of course, be wrong. Then again, the ‘rights are whatever is fashionable at the time for rights to be’ definition can be quite wrong.
If a restriction creates a positive right, then removal of that restriction removes a positive rights. I don’t think that view meshes with my ideas, or the ideas that founded this country (and, hence, what our legal system is based on).
Going back to the OP’s orignial question on why he can’t discriminate, the answer is
He may certainly discriminate in his business. But then he would probably be subject to 2) police action b) criminal prosecution and/or c) a civil suit.
If he wishes to avoid a-c above, he may choose not to discriminate.
Why do people keep saying this? It seems to me that the only rights I know about have come from legislative / governmental bodies. The right to vote in the US certainly seems to come from the constitution and various laws passed by congress. The right of freedom of religion comes from the constitution. What rights do not come from government?
SenorBeef
Could you reply to TheRyan for me as per my post above? I think he’d be more likely to listen to you on this point than to me.
SenorBeef is correct that the U.S. Constitution was originally based on the concept of natural rights. However, it’s not like Thomas Jefferson & Co. just made them up. On the contrary, there is an enormous amount of philosophical analysis underlying the theory of “natural rights.” You can’t simply say, “X is a “right” and Y is not a “right” because it just is!” X or Y may or may not be rights depending on time, place, condition, history, etc., not to mention which theory of justice you wish to use.
Property rights? No, I don’t see anything wrong with that. But then, I don’t see placing restrictions on the manner in which property may be used in a huge infringement on that right. The government does it all the time through, say, zoning. Do you have the same objection to all zoning laws? Because of course they also force property owners to do things they don’t want to do – have signs of a certain size, or no sign at all; not operate certain businesses in certain areas of town; remain open certain hours, or not be open certain hours – the examples are endless. And, no, I don’t think the government should have to demonstrate a compelling state interest before engaging in that type of regulation.
I don’t think the facts of history bear this out. Outlawing overt discrimination in places of public accommodation has virtually ended overt discrimination in places of public accommodation. You say that “people will do it if they really want to,” but either that isn’t true, or they don’t really want to. Considering how virulent prejudice can be, I’m inclined to think it’s the former.
Why do you think that the 18th century concept of rights included the dictum that the government cannot “force anyone to do anything”? Because you may think that is the view this country was founded on, but you have shown no evidence that it was.
I am not adverse to drawing that distinction, and am willing to accede to it if you like. It doesn’t change the analysis one bit, IMO, as I have already said.
I assume that under you definition, “rights” must always trump “privileges” and “powers” – because, one assumes, rights are inherent while privileges are bestowed. The problem with this is the underlying assumption that every right must be free of infringement, or only infringed upon if there is a “compelling state interest.” But this is not the case; the chief body interpreting and enforcing our rights has long held that some are more absolute than others. Your view that they are all absolute may be your philosophical position, but it is not mine (since I consider it unrealistic) and it does not reflect the reality (either current or historical) in this country.
Not in all cases, or even in most. What I said is that an absolute, universal prohibition by government may effectively create a right. That is not true of every governmental “limitation.”
But what is right and moral is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is based on your definitions of rights, privileges, and powers. I don’t share those opinions because I think they’re unrealistic and not based on the history you now implicitly assert they are based on.
I think that’s a fine and laudable position to take, philosophically, but I also think it ignores reality. In fact, your rights are subject to expansion and contraction by judicial interpretation. And as social circumstances and requirements change, the scope of your rights changes as well. You may argue that the underlying right is absolute and uninfringeable, and that therefore any interpretation to the contrary is “wrong” and doesn’t actually “change” the right, but I see very little value in that opinion on any but the purest of philosophical bases. In reality, the scope of your rights is determed by the interpretive body charged with that task, which is to say the Supreme Court. Your opinion to the contrary therefore has very little (if any) practical value.
You may say that, but it simply isn’t so. The rights in the Constitution are not exhaustive; that document does not stand for the premise “these are your rights, and that’s all.” It was never meant to be read as an exhaustive list. So how do you extrapolate from the fact that none of the rights listed are (in your opinion) implicitly coercive, to the assertion that no right ever could be implicitly coercive? You seem to be saying “because I don’t see it there, it must not exist.” I don’t think that follows. But then I don’t think your underlying premise – that the founding fathers defined rights as strictly and as mechanically as you do – is correct.
Please cite to the definition used to write the Constitution.
Yes. The right to free speech requires forcing people to listen to you when they’d rather you sat down and shut up. It requires forcing people to tolerate speech they consider offensive, sedition, or inflammatory. Doesn’t matter – you get to say it anyway. The right to assembly requires that those who desire you not to assemble nevertheless tolerate your assembly – and put up with the fruits of it, be they a sing-along or a revolution. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures forces the government to refrain from seaching your home, or arresting you at home at night (under most circumstances), even if they know you have evidence or illegal material in your home, and even if they know you’re guilty as sin. Every affirmative right “forces” those opposing it to put up with it anyway.
Let me ask you this: My home is next to a public park. I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property. You have a right to free speech in a public place, at a reasonable time and place. You wish to give a speech; I do not want you to give it, because you will disturb my quiet enjoyment of my home. Under these circumstances, who wins? How do you decide, if you consider both rights to be inviolate and absolute? And once you’ve explained to me who wins, and why, kindly explain how that victory does not “force” the loser to do something he doesn’t want to do.
I said, “it’s a bad analogy,” to which you reply “I’m saying that they’re analogous.” Yes. I understand that’s what your saying. There is no need to repeat your point if you are not going to address yourself to my objection to it. Simply repeating it does not make it any more right or persuasive.
(A) You’re trying to apply what you think are the principles this country was founded on, but you’ve given me no reason to believe you are correct in how you have interpreted (or declared) those principles. So if you have some basis for saying that the definition of “rights” you use is in fact the definition used by the founders, trot it out.
(B) Just because you do not find something in the Constitution does not mean it may not exist. The Constitution was never intended to be an exhaustive list of rights. The Bill of Rights was added to set forth the most important rights we have, not all the rights we have.
You keep saying that, but you have given me no reason to think you’re right – oh, pardon me, correct – in this assertion.
If you admit that the Constitution does not even grant any rights (rather, it reserves them), then why to you point to the Constitution as authority for what can or cannot be a right?
And I should clarify: It is true that the Constitution was prompted in large part by the belief that the British had excessively infringed on the rights of its citizens, through everything from onerous taxation to impressment of sailors. But the Constitution has never stood for the belief that the rights of the citizens cannot be infringed upon at all, no matter how compelling the reason, no matter how reasonable the interpretation. And this appears to be SENORBEEF’s position.
It seems that you are, in this thread and the thread on poverty, holding property rights to be absolute and even an inalienable right outside of the context of society, government, etc. However, my question is what property. The property you acquire necessarily depends on the details of the law in the society in which you live, ranging from the basic government structures, down through corporate and patent law, down to details of the infrastructure provided to you by the government. So, which is my absolute right, the property I am able to acquire in a society in which patent rights extend for 17 years or a society in which patent rights extend for 30 years or a society with no patent rights, to give just one example.
Your absolute right of property not only conflicts with the moral views of nearly all the other posters here (which is fine) but I don’t even see how it is in any way self-consistent. If property rights are some sort of absolute then you cannot get anywhere in forming a society because every freaking thing you do affects someone’s property or ability to acquire property or whatever.
) view of rights.