What we disagree on is probably what are 'rights'. :m:
The Paul File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
What we disagree on is probably what are 'rights'. :m:
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Marcus Tullius Cicero (famously quoted by Barry Goldwater)
IYO, What rights, if any, do all human "have"? ("Have" is not in the sense that they actually enjoy these rights - for example slaves do exist - but in the sense that some universal right is being violated when they do not actually have the right.)
For example is peacefully and publicly expressing a POV asking for a law to be changed a human's right? Or does the government which executes you for doing so violate no human right?
Can the state forbid any public practice of religion - burn down churches, mosques, synagogues etc that may have existed when it ceased power in a coup, without violating any human right? Or to be more general, forbid 5 or more people from holding a discussion of any type without government monitor recording the discussion and the names of the participants.
In your post 43, you think there is no violation of rights by having skin color based confiscation of property or other legal discriminations based on skin color so I am wondering if you think there are no human rights at all. As everything Hitler did was in accord with the law, do you hold that Hitler violated no one’s rights?
If a favorite of the state needs a liver replacement and yours is the best known match, can they just take your liver?
Again, what human rights, if any, exist from your POV?
That position is not neutral - it enables racism, particularly relative to what we have now.
What is "voluntary" about granting, say, restauranteurs the ability to unilaterally deprive people of a particular race of the option of eating in a particular town?
I can voluntarily put a gun to your head, and demand that you give me all of you're money or die. And you'd have a voluntary choice between those options. No problem with that, right? Also, rape doesn't exist.
I could agree with this, if that limitation to "PRIVATE property" is taken as strictly as it is presented. I.e., so long as said business doesn't utilize any public goods or services (roads, infrastructure, access to the workforce, protection by police, court enforcement of business contracts, etc.), then go right ahead. Because, of course, there can be no such business, to speak of.
Being pro-freedom-to-racially-discriminate is the same thing as being pro-racism. You aren't going to be able to get around this basic fact with cheap rephrasings of talking points.
So he's against it - it tramples the sacred FREEDOM - but isn't up to doing anything about it. And this is your champion of libertarianism? He's not answerable to his positions, because they aren't serious, is your response to this?
And the rest of us - the public - likewise have the choice to decline to provide essential public services to people that choose to transgress the basic human right to live free of racial, religious, etc. discrimination. We can even go one better, and impose actual penalties against such transgressions. This being how rights are actually protected in the first place.
You don't have to agree that people have a right to be treated fairly. But it doesn't matter, because the rest of us - and our laws - say that they do.
No, you just want to impose a system where neither me nor anyone else can restrain racism or its transgressions against the basic rights of millions of fellow citizens. You want to force me to contribute to a system of racism.
Noteably, Paul's prescription for the Middle East is analogous to his position on racism - USA should take it's ball, go home, and let things run their course.
This nifty little political trick allows him to appeal to the pro-Israel side (sure, he wants to cut the aid, but he's personally pro-Israel!) and the pro-Palestine side (since he'll cut the aid to Israel). Both, then, get to project their fantasy of what would happen after that onto Paul. Zionists can dream of unaccountable domination, while Palestinians can dream of Israel withering and dieing without US support.
It works the same way with the racism stuff - racists love it because he advocates for their "right" to discriminate, anti-racists can fool themselves into thinking that government non-interference will somehow "cure" racism through market forces, and Paul laughs his way into office.
Of course, these sorts of techniques only work well if you're an "outsider" without much political track record to answer for. Obama was way better at this - good enough to get elected President - and now everybody's disappointed that all the stuff they projected onto him was just that.
incidents of election fraud are different
"Oppression" is not a right... and it depends what type of 'oppression' it is. The problem with the Israel-Palestine issue is that they are taking away peoples right to LIVE. They don't respect private property rights, they don't follow international law and the list can go on...
To bring that up in this discussion is disingenuous.
No its not, it's a logical consequence of your assertions in this thread, although it somewhat amuses me that you don't see it (it was also depressingly predictable), and your reaction to my suggesting it indicates to me that it would be a complete waste of my time to illustrate how.
I simply phrased it in the most generic form possible.
Oh - and Racism is oppression, whether it's in the private home or not.
The position is neutral- the outcome may not be. You are again mixing the two up. What people choose to do with their freedom is a separate issue.
What isn't voluntary? You're just playing emotional games here.
Quite different situation. The restaurant doesn't threaten anyone to force others to give them something. Again instead of making these emotional case up, at least spend the time to make a example that is even remotely close.
Huh? Everyone has the right to use those public spaces which was funded by the public itself. The 'hiring' occurs on private property, and then its not the 'business' using public space, its the people who have the right to use it. But the public doesn't have the right to use private space.
Your process of thinking is totally reversed. The business is not stopping blacks or anyone from using public space. They are only stopping people from using THEIR space. But anyone from the private sector can use public space (if legal).
He's not 'pro-freedom-to-racially-discriminate... He's simply pro-freedom. What people do with that freedom does not become automatically endorsed. It is simply a recognition that you can not force your belief on other people.
If I am pro-freedom-to-choose religion,, it doesn't mean i'm pro Christian or any other faith that might lead people to hell which according to you would mean i'm pro-hell. This type of thinking is totally screwed up. And is simply another way to say 'tolerance' means you're pro-whatever-you-tolerated. BTW to 'tolerate' something automatically means you don't agree or endorse it but just have to 'live with it'.
There is no reason to repeal the civil rights act, he would simply introduce other legislation that respect property rights. And he will strengthen the issue of property rights. Instead of spouting emotionally charged nonsense step back.
'basic human right'- you just made those up. Protection from discrimination is not a right. And you can stop taking taxes from these people and business to build those 'public' places. Public places should respect the rights of everyone. And a racist business doesn't break away from that. The gov is respecting the right of those people's 'choice'. Stopping them would in fact be infringing upon their rights so your argument backfires.
Fairness in all matters of government's relationship to its people. Yes... Fairness from people to people? No. If I buy my two year old a chocolate, I don't need to buy one for my neighbors son to be fair to them.
If I lend $2 to a beggar to get on a bus, I don't have to give $2 to another beggar to be 'fair'.
No.
Like I said 'oppression' has many forms. So I can't say 'oppression' in general is a 'right'.. Secondly the issue with Israel is a government sponsored oppression, where it is the government treated people differently. I have never supported racism as instituted by government. As I said the relationship between people and government must be free from 'favoritism'- something you have failed to notice.
But in this, specific instance, one of the reasons why I chose it, it's culturally motivated, given that the majority of Jews living in Israel are of predominantly European descent, and palestinians are from the middle east, it trivially has a racial component to it - it's a racist policy, it's apartheid, and it's rooted in what each group considers a bloodright to be there, because it's the land of their ancestors (the difference being that only one group can reasonably demonstrate continued uninterrupted usage of the area).
State sponsorship is irrelevant, it's an arbitrary line you're using to sanitize a reprehensible standpoint. It's a crutch that you're using to ease your cognitive dissonance.
To whit: According to the standards you're espousing, If I was an Israeli Jew, and I found a Palestinian (or Arab, or other non-Jew) on my property, I would be entitled to deal with them as I saw fit, because it's my private property.
Last edited:
Outcomes are what politicians are answerable for, not intentions. Especially when the likely outcome is known in advance - we're talking about opposition to laws that were enacted to address specific, widespread problems. Opposition to such a law, is necessarily an endorsement of the status quo ante that said law addressed. Paul wants to bring back segregation. That's offensive, totally regardless of what his reasoning for such is.
The ability of people of the 'wrong' race to purchase and consume food in said town - you know, food? That stuff you have to consume regularly in order to remain alive? You know, "life?" That thing that all humans have a basic right to?
The restaurant uses force to deny people of the "wrong" race access to food, which they need to live. They are using force - withholding of the essentials of life - to expel certain races from the vicinity. If depriving people of food and shelter isn't "force," then nothing is.
Only if they abide by the public's rules designed to preserve and advance the public's interests.
"Hiring" is a legal contract - which requires access to the courts system (a public provision) - to exist as such.
"Private property" is itself a construct created and maintained by society. Without a state monopolizing the use of force and maintaining courts to ajudicate contracts and other claims, "private property" is nothing more or less than that which one can amass and defend via force.
You have yet to address the crucial point that a business is inherently a quasi-public entity. Since you fail to challenge this point, or even recognize it, I am going to go ahead and consider this point conceded, and so your entire position forfeit. Thanks for playing.
Distinction without a difference, given that said advocacy of "freedom" includes specific opposition to laws which restrict the freedom to racially discriminate.
When a person says that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a mistake because the government shouldn't restrict the freedom to discriminate on the basis of race, that's exactly "pro-freedom-to-racially-discriminate." There is no other serious way to take that position.
Still missing the point - the objection is to the endorsement of the freedom to racially discriminate, in the first place.
The issue isn't beliefs, it's behavior. I don't particularly care what people think about races, provided they do not discriminate in hiring, provision of goods and services, etc. Even if the Civil Rights act doesn't succeed in changing a single mind, it will still have been a stunning success for all of the racist oppression it has prevented.
And Paul's position is not a simple recognition of some philosophical principle about enforcing beliefs. It is an explicit policy prescription that racial oppression should be allowed to proceed without government interference. I don't really care what he thinks about whatever philosophical proposition. I care that he wants to legalize racial oppression. That y'all have cooked up some way to advocate for racial oppression without admitting that you are actually in favor of it is humorously pathological, but also essentially irrelevant.
Indeed, these inane strawmen you keep trying to introduce - even after I've explicitly disclaimed them as such - are ass backwards.
When there's no particular reason to tolerate whatever is in question, then that proposition is clearly true.
We have a Civil Rights Act that prevents racial discrimination. Paul wants to get rid of that, and instead "tolerate" the return of racial discrimination. That adds up to advocacy of racial discrimination, no matter what else he may say about it.
If I said we should tolerate murder, you'd have little trouble identifying me as pro-murder, no?
We don't have to live with racial discrimination. We have effective laws against it, on the books for decades now. Paul wants to get rid of them. He isn't advocating tolerating some unfixable status quo, but rather overturning it in favor of renewed racial oppression.
Haven't you and Paul just been listing such reasons - that it infringes on "property rights?" I thought that was supposed to be the core of the Libertarian political program - but there's "no reason" to do away with laws that you claim are unjust infringements on individual property rights? Is this a joke, or do you actually think your audience is stupid enough to let you have it both ways?
Legislation that conflicts with the prohibitions on racial discrimination found in the Civil Rights Act? If not, then what is the relevance? If so, then you're just playing semantic games with "overturn."
The hell I did.
Sure it is.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Do you agree with that? If so, how can you argue that individuals are within their rights to impede the pursuit of Happiness of others, on the basis of their race? Is racial discrimination not a direct, fundamental challenge to the very premise that "all men are created equal?"
You don't seem to have much of an idea of what rights people are generally understood to have, for somebody who goes on so much about protecting them and basing your entire political worldview on respect for them. You don't even present any definition of what rights are, nor any arguments to support you designations of what is or is not a right.
All of which begs the question of what in the hell you're actually advocating. "Rights" seems to be little more than a placeholder into which you stuff whatever conceptions suit you at any given moment, without any substantiation. Do "rights" consist of anything other than "fuck you, got mine?"
70% of Israeli Jews were born in Israel. How long does a people have to be in a place, for their rights to kick in?
The white populations of North America and Oceania are of predominantly European descent - are our national territorial rights likewise abrogated? If not, what's the difference?
Palestinian ancestors were not contained to the modern area of Israel/Palestine (as you elide with the "middle east" qualifier there), but to the Levant generally - so where is the advocacy of Palestinian national territorial rights to the Sinai, NW Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, SW Syria? Jordan is majority Palestinian, and has employed systematic massacre to keep them politically marginalized - why do we never hear complaints about this? Likewise, it was Lebanese Christians who slaughtered all those Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila - why do we never hear about the illegitimacy of Lebanese territorial claims? Obviously there are questions of politics involved, but I just don't see any basic willingness from any part to apply these frameworks of Palestinian territorial rights to any party other than Israel.
100% of Israelis and Palestinians are, ultimately, of 100% African descent. What is the mechanism through which nationalities gain legitimate territorial rights for non-African territories?
Is the entire system of national territorial rights actually a principled, rational framework, or is it simply a politically convenient justification for power politics? Since these rights exist at the national level, doesn't the arisal of national consciousness figure in somewhere?
The "uninterrupted" qualifier is interesting, there. On the one hand, it's clearly meant to delegitimize the Israeli national claim on the land. But on the other, doesn't it imply that current "interruptions" in Palestinian usage of the area likewise delegitimize their national claims?
If the Jewish national right to the land got cancelled when Rome came in, crushed them, and scattered them into exile, then why can't Israel cancel Palestine's claims in the same way?
The thing about these arguments of national territoriality is that they sound reasoned and moral at first glance, but once you start digging into them you quickly get back to naked power and geopolitical imperatives.
Last edited:
That wasn't my intent when I used it - I'm too used to local politics. In New Zealand, when the national government introduced their replacement for the Fore-Shore and Sea-beds act, one of the test as to whether or not they could legitemately claim ownership of a stretch of coast related to whether or not they could show uninterrupted usage since 1848 (I think that's right) - the idea being to offer a tool for the legitimization of a claim, leading to its legal recognition.
An equivalently (and perhaps more appropriate) qualifier might have been "Uninterrupted usaged until 1962" or something similar. Point being that it wasn't really intended to delegitamize anything.
Only if the interruptions themselves are legitimate :shrugs:.
I imagine it has something to do with how international law on how one nation can claim sovereignty over another has evolved since the fall of the Roman Empire.
Quite frankly this is what I find irrelevant.
Nope. If you don't see the difference between public policy (government) and private policy (my personal feelings) and how that plays into rights then there is no reason to continue.
According to law.. I would hope murder is not allowed
You're wasting my time.Quite frankly this is what I find irrelevant.
Nope. If you don't see the difference between public policy (government) and private policy (my personal feelings) and how that plays into rights then there is no reason to continue.
According to law.. I would hope murder is not allowed