Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ron Paul has stated that he is willing to sell out the freedom of people being discriminated against so that he can protect the freedom of racists
That is his tradeoff
What freedom are they losing exactly? Do you believe only certain groups shoudl be allowed the freedom to tell others what they must do with their property?
Freedom is a tradeoff between the freedom to restrict freedom of association and the freedom of association itself
Ron Paul sides with the racists
What freedom are they losing exactly? Do you believe only certain groups shoudl be allowed the freedom to tell others what they must do with their property?
Freedom is a tradeoff between the freedom to restrict freedom of association and the freedom of association itself
Ron Paul sides with the racists
That is simply not true. He sides with personal property rights. The right to do what you want with your own property is not limited only to what 'rightwing' finds acceptable. And as has been pointed out several times, you have a double standard on your hands. You insist that property owners must be made by law to treat everyone the same. Yet you don't demand the same laws apply to consumers.
It gives the government power to define discrimination.How about instead you show me where in the Civil Rights Act it bestows special rights on certain groups of people - or - shut the fuck up.
Thanks.
Can you actually point to the text in the Civil rights Act special rights are bestowed on certain groups of people, or are you completely full of shit?
The final sections of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments each grant Congress the power to enforce the respective amendments through appropriate legislation.
Freedom is a tradeoff between the freedom to restrict freedom of association and the freedom of association itself
Ron Paul sides with the racists
That is simply not true. He sides with personal property rights. The right to do what you want with your own property is not limited only to what 'rightwing' finds acceptable. And as has been pointed out several times, you have a double standard on your hands. You insist that property owners must be made by law to treat everyone the same. Yet you don't demand the same laws apply to consumers.
There is no Constitutional right to deny people public accommodation based on race.
That is simply not true. He sides with personal property rights. The right to do what you want with your own property is not limited only to what 'rightwing' finds acceptable. And as has been pointed out several times, you have a double standard on your hands. You insist that property owners must be made by law to treat everyone the same. Yet you don't demand the same laws apply to consumers.
It gives the government power to define discrimination.
Can you actually point to the text in the Civil rights Act special rights are bestowed on certain groups of people, or are you completely full of shit?
The final sections of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments each grant Congress the power to enforce the respective amendments through appropriate legislation.
It certainly imposes restrictions on some that it does not on othes. It applies only to certain property owners. It allows consumers to continue to discriminate.
There are no laws against it, are there? Do you think there's a need for such a law?That is simply not true. He sides with personal property rights. The right to do what you want with your own property is not limited only to what 'rightwing' finds acceptable. And as has been pointed out several times, you have a double standard on your hands. You insist that property owners must be made by law to treat everyone the same. Yet you don't demand the same laws apply to consumers.
There is no Constitutional right to deny people public accommodation based on race.
If it doesn't it also does not grant anyone the right to not patron a business based on race.
You don;t have a right to particpate in interstae commerce free of regulation by the federal government.It does grant personal property rights however.
He's talking about rights in commercial and capital property, not personal property. There is naturally less leeway in operating a business than there is in what you do privately in your own home, because it impacts others more. No right is absolute, because all freedoms conflict, and so we always make judgments about where the boundary line lies. Refusing to hire, promote, house, or serve people on the basis of race is something that has been judged to be a non-right, because it conflicts with the right to be treated equally regardless of race.
Anything you do in public is always more restricted than what you do in private (at least insofar as the LAW restricts behavior -- your family members may of course be a different matter). You cannot go out in public naked, for example, while you can do so in your own home. You can also smoke in your own home, but often can't do so in a public place. And so on. Business, which is always conducted in public, is therefore naturally subject to more restraints and regulations than private behavior.
He's talking about rights in commercial and capital property, not personal property. There is naturally less leeway in operating a business than there is in what you do privately in your own home, because it impacts others more. No right is absolute, because all freedoms conflict, and so we always make judgments about where the boundary line lies. Refusing to hire, promote, house, or serve people on the basis of race is something that has been judged to be a non-right, because it conflicts with the right to be treated equally regardless of race.
Anything you do in public is always more restricted than what you do in private (at least insofar as the LAW restricts behavior -- your family members may of course be a different matter). You cannot go out in public naked, for example, while you can do so in your own home. You can also smoke in your own home, but often can't do so in a public place. And so on. Business, which is always conducted in public, is therefore naturally subject to more restraints and regulations than private behavior.
And the contention being made is not that we (libertarians) don't understand that you are trying to make a distinction. The contention is the distinction you're trying to make isn't real. Either you own property or you don't.
There are no laws against it, are there? Do you think there's a need for such a law?
You don;t have a right to particpate in interstae commerce free of regulation by the federal government.
And the contention being made is not that we (libertarians) don't understand that you are trying to make a distinction. The contention is the distinction you're trying to make isn't real. Either you own property or you don't.
OK. So what? No one ever said it prevents all discrimination. Stop arguing with someone that doesn't exist.There are no laws against it, are there? Do you think there's a need for such a law?
No there's aren't and that's my point. The notion that the civil rights act prevents people from discriminating based on race is a load of crap. It ONLY applies to businesses.
You don;t have a right to particpate in interstae commerce free of regulation by the federal government.
What exacty does what I own have to do with interstate commerce?
And the contention being made is not that we (libertarians) don't understand that you are trying to make a distinction. The contention is the distinction you're trying to make isn't real. Either you own property or you don't.
I absolutely disagree. There are three types of property, distinguished by what you intend to use it for. I call these personal property, commercial property, and capital property. Personal property is property you intend to keep and use. Commercial property is property you want to sell. Capital property is property used to produce commercial property. These distinctions are obviously of some significance, and in my judgment affect how absolutely we should consider a right in such property to be.
All of this follows logically from the universal principle that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Capital property inevitably impacts others in ways that personal property seldom does. (Although there are SOME restrictions on personal property, too; for example, I can't use my baseball bat to pound you on the head.)
If someone breaks into your home and steals your computer, that's a serious violation of personal space. You lose not only an item of hardware, but also all the files you had on it, which may very well be irreplaceable. The same computer as commercial property belonging to a computer company may actually be worth more in terms of sale price (new being generally worth more than used), but theft of it is not as big a violation or intrusion. I mean, the company didn't want to keep the computer anyway, so all it's really losing is the sale price. Personal property is in this sense "worth more" than commercial property to its owner.
As for capital property, use of that to produce products for sale entails many obligations and limitations on one's right of use that personal property doesn't. If you have to hire people in order to use it, as is frequently the case, that, too, carries obligations. When use of your property impacts others, your rights to use it may be limited, and in the case of capital property it always impacts others.
OK. So what? No one ever said it prevents all discrimination. Stop arguing with someone that doesn't exist.There are no laws against it, are there? Do you think there's a need for such a law?
No there's aren't and that's my point. The notion that the civil rights act prevents people from discriminating based on race is a load of crap. It ONLY applies to businesses.
You don;t have a right to particpate in interstae commerce free of regulation by the federal government.
What exacty does what I own have to do with interstate commerce?
The act of owning a hotel is not an act of commerce. Commerce must involve the actions of multiple people.OK. So what? No one ever said it prevents all discrimination. Stop arguing with someone that doesn't exist.There are no laws against it, are there? Do you think there's a need for such a law?
No there's aren't and that's my point. The notion that the civil rights act prevents people from discriminating based on race is a load of crap. It ONLY applies to businesses.
You don;t have a right to particpate in interstae commerce free of regulation by the federal government.
What exacty does what I own have to do with interstate commerce?
If you own a hotel or restaurant open to the public and with frontage on a public road accessible via interstate travel - you are by definition opening your doors to, and participating in and attempting to profit from, interstate commerce.
OK. So what? No one ever said it prevents all discrimination. Stop arguing with someone that doesn't exist.No there's aren't and that's my point. The notion that the civil rights act prevents people from discriminating based on race is a load of crap. It ONLY applies to businesses.
It begs the question what is the point? It also proves the point that rights were taken from one group and given to another. They quite literally discriminated against a group to end discrimination against another.
You don;t have a right to particpate in interstae commerce free of regulation by the federal government.
What exacty does what I own have to do with interstate commerce?
If you own a hotel or restaurant open to the public and with frontage on a public road accessible via interstate travel - you are by definition opening your doors to, and participating in and attempting to profit from, interstate commerce.
The act of owning a hotel is not an act of commerce.OK. So what? No one ever said it prevents all discrimination. Stop arguing with someone that doesn't exist.No there's aren't and that's my point. The notion that the civil rights act prevents people from discriminating based on race is a load of crap. It ONLY applies to businesses.
What exacty does what I own have to do with interstate commerce?
If you own a hotel or restaurant open to the public and with frontage on a public road accessible via interstate travel - you are by definition opening your doors to, and participating in and attempting to profit from, interstate commerce.
Either way, that is irrelevant. At the time the Constitution was created, regulate had a different definition. It meant "to keep regular", in other words, to prevent states from adding tariffs.
No, its not.It is the equivalent of saying "The right to bear arms" really does not mean the right to a gun, but the right to have arms from a bear.
