NC has responded to the Feds

[alang1216]

Your investopedia definition presupposes that government proceeded property rights (a common logical fallacy advanced by statists) when in fact one of the major reasons man created government was to PROTECT his property rights (along with his life and liberty) through mutual cooperation.

But "government" did proceed property rights. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had little or no property but they had a leader and laws/rules/traditions or whatever you want to call them. There's was a simple government, but a government none the less. Even chimpanzees have a social structure with a hierarchy and acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

If two property owners clash over their rights, how is it resolved?

 

[alang1216]

Well, at least you gave a link when asked. Kudos to that.

Unfortunately, your source is pretty much bunk, and doesn't seem to understand what 'property rights' actually is. The concept of property rights is a belief that various things can be owned by an individual, who alone has exclusive jurisdiction to their value or product. Locke is most often cited as best articulating the concept, who saw it as a fundamental natural right.

Thus, whether not you are allowed to use your knife to murder your neighbor is not a question of whether your property rights are being infringed upon. Murder prohibitions infringe upon behaviors. The knife still belongs to you, and therefore no infringement upon your property rights occurs.

If that is how you define 'property rights' I have no issue with it. My issue then is behavioral, I never said the bathroom in your business is not yours. Discrimination is a behavior that should not be allowed unless a valid case can be made for it.

 

[NightFox]

It doesn't appear that you've learned anything, since the Jim Crow that you pointed to was a construct of the state too, it was created by dickhead politicians putting words onto paper and calling them "laws" and then enforcing them at the point of a government gun. It wasn't until people recognized the IMMORALITY of such laws that they were done away with, now some people that like to preach about the IMMORALITY of institutional racism cannot come up with any shred of a MORAL justification for what's in effect the state stealing the rights of private property owners just because they happen to have made the choice to conduct voluntary exchange with/on that property.

Laws are neither moral or immoral, they merely reflect the morality of the society that enacted them.

No words on a piece of paper are neither moral or immoral, it's when those words get enforced at the point of a government gun that they become either moral or immoral and your assertion that they "reflect the morality of the society that enacted them" presupposes that they exist in a state that serves the will of the people above all other things, at all times (which they most often DO NOT), can we think of any instances where a tyrannical state acted based on the morality of the few in power instead of the morality generally accepted by the majority of the society they ruled?

The justification for the state "stealing the rights of private property owners" is that the state provides the rights it chooses and can limit them as it sees fit.

The state doesn't provide (or create) rights, rights are a product of our humanity and the most basic right that you and everyone else is born with is the right to the ownership of your own mind and body and thus the ownership of the product of your conscious action. The state only exists to PROTECT that right (among others along with your life), you are not owned by the state nor are you owned by society, if you were then your free will would cease to exist and you'd effectively become an ant.

Is there anyone who believes that private property owners should be able to do anything they want, even if it impacts the rights of others? Only the state or a shotgun can balance the two.

No one implied that private property owners have ANY right to infringe upon the rights of others however denying or restricting the use of one's own private property to others does NOT infringe upon the rights of others.

Your problem is that you've ceded control of the state. As I see it, we, as a society, are the state so there is no such thing as ceding control to the state.

Incorrect, society (an abstract) is simply a collection of individuals (real things) working in mutual cooperation to protect their individual life, liberty and property as well as advance (through the specialization of labor) their mutual prosperity.

 

[TNHarley]

Well, at least you gave a link when asked. Kudos to that.

Unfortunately, your source is pretty much bunk, and doesn't seem to understand what 'property rights' actually is. The concept of property rights is a belief that various things can be owned by an individual, who alone has exclusive jurisdiction to their value or product. Locke is most often cited as best articulating the concept, who saw it as a fundamental natural right.

Thus, whether not you are allowed to use your knife to murder your neighbor is not a question of whether your property rights are being infringed upon. Murder prohibitions infringe upon behaviors. The knife still belongs to you, and therefore no infringement upon your property rights occurs.

If that is how you define 'property rights' I have no issue with it. My issue then is behavioral, I never said the bathroom in you business is not yours. Discrimination is a behavior that should not be allowed unless a valid case can be made for it.

who wants discrimination from the institution?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Well, at least you gave a link when asked. Kudos to that.

Unfortunately, your source is pretty much bunk, and doesn't seem to understand what 'property rights' actually is. The concept of property rights is a belief that various things can be owned by an individual, who alone has exclusive jurisdiction to their value or product. Locke is most often cited as best articulating the concept, who saw it as a fundamental natural right.

Thus, whether not you are allowed to use your knife to murder your neighbor is not a question of whether your property rights are being infringed upon. Murder prohibitions infringe upon behaviors. The knife still belongs to you, and therefore no infringement upon your property rights occurs.

If that is how you define 'property rights' I have no issue with it. My issue then is behavioral, I never said the bathroom in you business is not yours. Discrimination is a behavior that should not be allowed unless a valid case can be made for it.

Bullshit , we have the right to discriminate , and in fact the stupid PA laws don't even prevent discrimination. They merely provide EXTRA protections for certain classes.

An example completely related to THIS topic. Bruce Springsteen discriminated against the people of North Carolina when he declared that he would not go on with his planned concert in that state. COMPLETELY legal and COMPLETELY within his rights, since no person should be forced to work for someone they don't want to work for.

 

[SwimExpert]

Science supports them .
Damn you're ignorant.

No, it doesn't. But that's okay.

Yes it does.

No. Sorry, you've been lied to with invented pseudo science.

False ! Nice dodge though

I'm not joking. Can you show a single physics experiment to support what you are saying? Is there a chemical formula? Maybe a fossil?

The "science" of which you speak is nothing more than a belief within the psychology field. Psychology is, by definition, a pseudo science. Well enough, in and of itself. But that warrants a special level of critical review. The origin of the idea that there is this thing called "gender" that is distinct from biological sex is based on nothing more than people saying that feel like it is true.

Shrink 1: Hey guys, I've had all these transgender patients, and they keep saying that they feel like they're in the wrong bodies.
Shrink 2: Yep, that's what mine say too.
Shrink 3: Oh! So, let's say they are in the wrong body. We've separated sexual attraction from gender. What if we start looking at gender as arbitrary. Something that happens regardless of your gender.
Shrink 2: How do we do that? How does gender not equal gender anymore?
Shrink 3: Well, we have to make it abstract. Kinda like the idea of a spirit or soul. What if your soul has a gender, but your body doesn't necessarily have the same gender?
Shrink 1: And how in the world do we describe that?
Shrink 3: This is what we do....from now on we'll use 'sex' to describe biological gender. And we'll use 'gender' to describe a soul's gender, or a person's 'true' gender.
Shrink 1: Don't you think this is a little....well, a bit of a stretch? I mean, what are we basing this off of?
Shrink 3: We're basing it off of our observations from our patients, of course! You're not judging your patients, are you? Are you letting your personal feelings effect the way you treat your patients?
Shrink 1: What? No! Of course not!
Shrink 3: Okay, so let's take a vote. Who votes in favor of saying gender and sex are different things?
Shrink 1: I vote no, because I don't see any convincing evidence of a causal relationship.
Shrink 2: I vote yes, because it's a useful way to describe our observations, even if it doesn't explain why.
Shrink 3: I vote yes because it's definitely the reason why, and we need to make sure people think so too!

Shrink 3: The American School of Sychologists announces a consensus is that gender and sex are two different things.

You: Look, science backs it up!

 

[SwimExpert]

Well, at least you gave a link when asked. Kudos to that.

Unfortunately, your source is pretty much bunk, and doesn't seem to understand what 'property rights' actually is. The concept of property rights is a belief that various things can be owned by an individual, who alone has exclusive jurisdiction to their value or product. Locke is most often cited as best articulating the concept, who saw it as a fundamental natural right.

Thus, whether not you are allowed to use your knife to murder your neighbor is not a question of whether your property rights are being infringed upon. Murder prohibitions infringe upon behaviors. The knife still belongs to you, and therefore no infringement upon your property rights occurs.

If that is how you define 'property rights' I have no issue with it. My issue then is behavioral, I never said the bathroom in your business is not yours. Discrimination is a behavior that should not be allowed unless a valid case can be made for it.

A valid case can be made to allow discrimination, and let the market deal with it.

Just a few days ago there was a discussion on this board about Shupee Max Towing discriminating against someone who had a Bernie Sanders sticker on their vehicle. Look at the results:

Shupee Max Used Cars & Towing

 

[NightFox]

Your investopedia definition presupposes that government proceeded property rights (a common logical fallacy advanced by statists) when in fact one of the major reasons man created government was to PROTECT his property rights (along with his life and liberty) through mutual cooperation.

But "government" did proceed property rights. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had little or no property but they had a leader and laws/rules/traditions or whatever you want to call them. There's was a simple government, but a government none the less.

Doesn't matter how much property our "hunter-gatherer ancestors" had, they were born with ownership over their own minds and bodies (commonly known as free will and the means to exercise it) and thus the products of the labor generated by that mind and body, the state only came in afterwards and was fostered by individuals that supposed it was easier to live off the fruits of other peoples labor in exchange for the promise "protecting" them (most often "ruling" them), thus was the parasitic political class born and the completely nonsensical notion that the state creates rights.

Even chimpanzees have a social structure with a hierarchy and acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

Ummm... Humans are not Chimpanzees and thus it would be nonsensical to base our social structure on anything they do.

If two property owners clash over their rights, how is it resolved?

That's one of the legitimate reasons for the existence of the state, to resolve legitimate property ownership disputes, a moral resolution could only be achieved by determining a legitimate chain of ownership (i.e. A found the property in it's natural state and mixed his labor with it thus establishing ownership, A exchanged with B for X, B exchange it with C for Y... assuming X and Y were legitimate (i.e. not taken by force from someone else) then the property owner is C).

 

[alang1216]

No words on a piece of paper are neither moral or immoral, it's when those words get enforced at the point of a government gun that they become either moral or immoral and your assertion that they "reflect the morality of the society that enacted them" presupposes that they exist in a state that serves the will of the people above all other things, at all times (which they most often DO NOT), can we think of any instances where a tyrannical state acted based on the morality of the few in power instead of the morality generally accepted by the majority of the society they ruled?

Sorry but I don't see any absolute morality. If you know of one let me know. As for tyranny, we were talking about NC/USA. Neither is perfect but I think democracy is as good as it gets.

No one implied that private property owners have ANY right to infringe upon the rights of others however denying or restricting the use of one's own private property to others does NOT infringe upon the rights of others.

And we're back to the era of Jim Crow. There were state laws but many businesses practiced it too. I recall a lunch counter that made the news.

 

[daws101]

This is where the stupid PA laws have led us.

stupid because they don't benefit you?

 

[TNHarley]

This is where the stupid PA laws have led us.

stupid because they don't benefit you?

So you support inequality?

 

[daws101]

Science supports them .
Damn you're ignorant.

No, it doesn't. But that's okay.

Yes it does.

No. Sorry, you've been lied to with invented pseudo science.

False ! Nice dodge though

I'm not joking. Can you show a single physics experiment to support what you are saying? Is there a chemical formula? Maybe a fossil?

The "science" of which you speak is nothing more than a belief within the psychology field. Psychology is, by definition, a pseudo science. Well enough, in and of itself. But that warrants a special level of critical review. The origin of the idea that there is this thing called "gender" that is distinct from biological sex is based on nothing more than people saying that feel like it is true.

Shrink 1: Hey guys, I've had all these transgender patients, and they keep saying that they feel like they're in the wrong bodies.
Shrink 2: Yep, that's what mine say too.
Shrink 3: Oh! So, let's say they are in the wrong body. We've separated sexual attraction from gender. What if we start looking at gender as arbitrary. Something that happens regardless of your gender.
Shrink 2: How do we do that? How does gender not equal gender anymore?
Shrink 3: Well, we have to make it abstract. Kinda like the idea of a spirit or soul. What if your soul has a gender, but your body doesn't necessarily have the same gender?
Shrink 1: And how in the world do we describe that?
Shrink 3: This is what we do....from now on we'll use 'sex' to describe biological gender. And we'll use 'gender' to describe a soul's gender, or a person's 'true' gender.
Shrink 1: Don't you think this is a little....well, a bit of a stretch? I mean, what are we basing this off of?
Shrink 3: We're basing it off of our observations from our patients, of course! You're not judging your patients, are you? Are you letting your personal feelings effect the way you treat your patients?
Shrink 1: What? No! Of course not!
Shrink 3: Okay, so let's take a vote. Who votes in favor of saying gender and sex are different things?
Shrink 1: I vote no, because I don't see any convincing evidence of a causal relationship.
Shrink 2: I vote yes, because it's a useful way to describe our observations, even if it doesn't explain why.
Shrink 3: I vote yes because it's definitely the reason why, and we need to make sure people think so too!

Shrink 3: The American School of Sychologists announces a consensus is that gender and sex are two different things.

You: Look, science backs it up!

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

 

[TNHarley]

No, it doesn't. But that's okay.

Yes it does.

No. Sorry, you've been lied to with invented pseudo science.

False ! Nice dodge though

I'm not joking. Can you show a single physics experiment to support what you are saying? Is there a chemical formula? Maybe a fossil?

The "science" of which you speak is nothing more than a belief within the psychology field. Psychology is, by definition, a pseudo science. Well enough, in and of itself. But that warrants a special level of critical review. The origin of the idea that there is this thing called "gender" that is distinct from biological sex is based on nothing more than people saying that feel like it is true.

Shrink 1: Hey guys, I've had all these transgender patients, and they keep saying that they feel like they're in the wrong bodies.
Shrink 2: Yep, that's what mine say too.
Shrink 3: Oh! So, let's say they are in the wrong body. We've separated sexual attraction from gender. What if we start looking at gender as arbitrary. Something that happens regardless of your gender.
Shrink 2: How do we do that? How does gender not equal gender anymore?
Shrink 3: Well, we have to make it abstract. Kinda like the idea of a spirit or soul. What if your soul has a gender, but your body doesn't necessarily have the same gender?
Shrink 1: And how in the world do we describe that?
Shrink 3: This is what we do....from now on we'll use 'sex' to describe biological gender. And we'll use 'gender' to describe a soul's gender, or a person's 'true' gender.
Shrink 1: Don't you think this is a little....well, a bit of a stretch? I mean, what are we basing this off of?
Shrink 3: We're basing it off of our observations from our patients, of course! You're not judging your patients, are you? Are you letting your personal feelings effect the way you treat your patients?
Shrink 1: What? No! Of course not!
Shrink 3: Okay, so let's take a vote. Who votes in favor of saying gender and sex are different things?
Shrink 1: I vote no, because I don't see any convincing evidence of a causal relationship.
Shrink 2: I vote yes, because it's a useful way to describe our observations, even if it doesn't explain why.
Shrink 3: I vote yes because it's definitely the reason why, and we need to make sure people think so too!

Shrink 3: The American School of Sychologists announces a consensus is that gender and sex are two different things.

You: Look, science backs it up!

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

 

[daws101]

This is where the stupid PA laws have led us.

stupid because they don't benefit you?

So you support inequality?

no but you do .
every time you say stupid shit like go to their assigned bathrooms you are supporting inequality and authoritarianism ,
every statement you make on the subject is crammed full of it .
when you talk about freedom its a fucking joke

 

[daws101]

Yes it does.

No. Sorry, you've been lied to with invented pseudo science.

False ! Nice dodge though

I'm not joking. Can you show a single physics experiment to support what you are saying? Is there a chemical formula? Maybe a fossil?

The "science" of which you speak is nothing more than a belief within the psychology field. Psychology is, by definition, a pseudo science. Well enough, in and of itself. But that warrants a special level of critical review. The origin of the idea that there is this thing called "gender" that is distinct from biological sex is based on nothing more than people saying that feel like it is true.

Shrink 1: Hey guys, I've had all these transgender patients, and they keep saying that they feel like they're in the wrong bodies.
Shrink 2: Yep, that's what mine say too.
Shrink 3: Oh! So, let's say they are in the wrong body. We've separated sexual attraction from gender. What if we start looking at gender as arbitrary. Something that happens regardless of your gender.
Shrink 2: How do we do that? How does gender not equal gender anymore?
Shrink 3: Well, we have to make it abstract. Kinda like the idea of a spirit or soul. What if your soul has a gender, but your body doesn't necessarily have the same gender?
Shrink 1: And how in the world do we describe that?
Shrink 3: This is what we do....from now on we'll use 'sex' to describe biological gender. And we'll use 'gender' to describe a soul's gender, or a person's 'true' gender.
Shrink 1: Don't you think this is a little....well, a bit of a stretch? I mean, what are we basing this off of?
Shrink 3: We're basing it off of our observations from our patients, of course! You're not judging your patients, are you? Are you letting your personal feelings effect the way you treat your patients?
Shrink 1: What? No! Of course not!
Shrink 3: Okay, so let's take a vote. Who votes in favor of saying gender and sex are different things?
Shrink 1: I vote no, because I don't see any convincing evidence of a causal relationship.
Shrink 2: I vote yes, because it's a useful way to describe our observations, even if it doesn't explain why.
Shrink 3: I vote yes because it's definitely the reason why, and we need to make sure people think so too!

Shrink 3: The American School of Sychologists announces a consensus is that gender and sex are two different things.

You: Look, science backs it up!

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

showcasing your stupidity for all to see .....

 

[TNHarley]

This is where the stupid PA laws have led us.

stupid because they don't benefit you?

So you support inequality?

no but you do .
every time you say stupid shit like go to their assigned bathrooms you are supporting inequality and authoritarianism ,
every statement you make on the subject is crammed full of it .
when you talk about freedom its a fucking joke

assigned bathrooms are authoritarian and inequal? You are so fuckin stupid.
True story bro. Stupid as fuck.

 

[TNHarley]

No. Sorry, you've been lied to with invented pseudo science.

False ! Nice dodge though

I'm not joking. Can you show a single physics experiment to support what you are saying? Is there a chemical formula? Maybe a fossil?

The "science" of which you speak is nothing more than a belief within the psychology field. Psychology is, by definition, a pseudo science. Well enough, in and of itself. But that warrants a special level of critical review. The origin of the idea that there is this thing called "gender" that is distinct from biological sex is based on nothing more than people saying that feel like it is true.

Shrink 1: Hey guys, I've had all these transgender patients, and they keep saying that they feel like they're in the wrong bodies.
Shrink 2: Yep, that's what mine say too.
Shrink 3: Oh! So, let's say they are in the wrong body. We've separated sexual attraction from gender. What if we start looking at gender as arbitrary. Something that happens regardless of your gender.
Shrink 2: How do we do that? How does gender not equal gender anymore?
Shrink 3: Well, we have to make it abstract. Kinda like the idea of a spirit or soul. What if your soul has a gender, but your body doesn't necessarily have the same gender?
Shrink 1: And how in the world do we describe that?
Shrink 3: This is what we do....from now on we'll use 'sex' to describe biological gender. And we'll use 'gender' to describe a soul's gender, or a person's 'true' gender.
Shrink 1: Don't you think this is a little....well, a bit of a stretch? I mean, what are we basing this off of?
Shrink 3: We're basing it off of our observations from our patients, of course! You're not judging your patients, are you? Are you letting your personal feelings effect the way you treat your patients?
Shrink 1: What? No! Of course not!
Shrink 3: Okay, so let's take a vote. Who votes in favor of saying gender and sex are different things?
Shrink 1: I vote no, because I don't see any convincing evidence of a causal relationship.
Shrink 2: I vote yes, because it's a useful way to describe our observations, even if it doesn't explain why.
Shrink 3: I vote yes because it's definitely the reason why, and we need to make sure people think so too!

Shrink 3: The American School of Sychologists announces a consensus is that gender and sex are two different things.

You: Look, science backs it up!

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

showcasing your stupidity for all to see .....

you said the guy was false about claiming pseudo science, and you go and post a link full of it.
MORON

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This is where the stupid PA laws have led us.

stupid because they don't benefit you?

Stupid because they force people to work for people they don't want to work for, and because they only provide protection against certain discrimination.

PA laws are by their very nature a violation of the equal protection clause of the COTUS.

 

[kaz]

When you come to North Carolina (I live here), it's up to the owner.

So if I own a business I can demand someone prove their gender before I let them into my bathroom? I'm sure no one in NC would abuse that power and apply it to someone's race or ethnicity.

As for the sexual predator, what if it's not you, it's your daughter, she's alone in the bathroom and the sexual predator who just flat out looks and acts like a guy because he's not a transgender walks past a bunch of adults into the bathroom with your daughter because they aren't allowed to question it? But hey, he wouldn't do anything, right? There are "laws" to protect her ...

So the answer to ineffectual laws is another law? What would Einstein say?

So if laws are ineffectual, why are you the one who wants a law? I want no law, I want it up to the owner of the bathroom, which is what the NC law says.

I like how when you want a law to regulate, that's me wanting a law, and you want the law while you call laws ineffective. Maybe you need a little more time to get your story together

 

[Fair&Balanced]

When you come to North Carolina (I live here), it's up to the owner.

So if I own a business I can demand someone prove their gender before I let them into my bathroom? I'm sure no one in NC would abuse that power and apply it to someone's race or ethnicity.

As for the sexual predator, what if it's not you, it's your daughter, she's alone in the bathroom and the sexual predator who just flat out looks and acts like a guy because he's not a transgender walks past a bunch of adults into the bathroom with your daughter because they aren't allowed to question it? But hey, he wouldn't do anything, right? There are "laws" to protect her ...

So the answer to ineffectual laws is another law? What would Einstein say?

So if laws are ineffectual, why are you the one who wants a law? I want no law, I want it up to the owner of the bathroom, which is what the NC law says.

I like how when you want a law to regulate, that's me wanting a law, and you want the law while you call laws ineffective. Maybe you need a little more time to get your story together

That's not ALL the NC states bro. It also states that in actual PUBLIC bathrooms you must use the correct gender bathroom. To me , this was a stupid fight to pick. EVERY government building has multiple bathrooms, just designate one or two as gender free and go on. No need for that portion of the law.