Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (80709)	6/18/2004 5:48:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Equal protection under the law is a constitutional right, based on a presumed natural right, that deals with equal protection in matters of law or government" That is what I was talking about: EQUAL treatment under the law. Note the "that deals with equal protection in matters of law or government". Now why does the right to free association trump the right to equal treatment under the law in regards to natural rights? 1 - You aren't talking about equal treatment under the law if you are demanding equal treatment in matters other then law or government. 2 - You don't have a natural right for people to treat you the same way they treat other people. Is equal treatment without regard to color, race,religion, or gender not a natural right?? Yes it is not a natural right. I would call the law treating you equally to be a natural right but there is no general natural right for people to treat you the same as they treat others. Even when the criteria is solely gender or race or religion there is no properly enforceable affirmative obligation for people to treat you the same. If someone refuses to hire a black man or won't rent to an Asian woman or won't let Hindus in to his store then he is apparently being a jerk and a bigot, and he would be acting rudely and inappropriately. But not everything that is rude or inappropriate or otherwise wrong should be illegal. Is the right to life, safety, property or legal rights not equally assignable to all people regardless of color, race, and such?? The natural rights to life, property, ect. apply equally to all colors, races, ect. Legal rights are principles defined by the law. They apply to whoever the law says they apply to. In general in the US and in a number of other countries most or all legal rights and obligations apply equally to all people. There are distinctions by age but usually not by color, or race or religion. I accept your right to consider legally sanctioned prejudice and inequality of rights and freedoms to fall under the aegis of "civilized". Not forbidding something or not punishing someone for doing it is not the same thing as legally sanctioning it. There are many activities which I would not sanction, that I might even condemn, but that I still don't think should be illegal. I don't think that UNEQUAL treatment under the law represents a civilized value...but it is only my opinion. Again the term "equal treatment under the law" generally means the law or the government treats people equally. It does not mean that the government forces others to treat people equally. I don't think that unjustified unequal treatment is "a civilized value", I merely assert that it is not something that would by itself cause a society not to be an example of civilization. If such discrimination is not just allowed under the law but becomes the normal way a society operates I would probably call that aspect of the society uncivilized, but uncivilized doesn't mean that you don't have civilization. Uncivilized is often used to mean - "Not civil, coarse or clownish." It doesn't indicate the lack of civilization it just indicate rudeness or meanness. The discrimination that you think should be illegal, I think is rude and mean and in extreme cases uncivilized but laws against it are still "not a requirement for or a necessary consequences of civilization". Would you say the US in the 1950s or earlier was not a civilization or part of a civilization? IMO such a claim would be nonsensical. Tim