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 (80761)	6/25/2004 12:44:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If it was changed it such a way would the law be an injustice that should be fought against or would it be ok to lock up people who get "uppity" about it?" The answer to each and all of those questions is "no". We certainly have no disagreement there, I hope. I assume for the last question you mean "yes" it would be an injustice and "no" it would not be ok to lock people up if they protested against it or violated it. If so your right we have no disagreement on that short list of questions. But all rights are constrained by the rights of others. Freedom of Association is not Absolute. Just as freedom of speech is not Absolute. You can but you may not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. But there is no right of others to demand that you pay them, or sell to them. Not having the right to "tell 'fire' in a crowded theatre", is about not having the right to put people in immenent danger. I'd accept a similar limitation in cases where there is a risk of immediate death if you don't treat people equally. Protection does require force. . If you force someone to hire you, you are not being protected. Refusing to hire someone, even on the ground of race, religion, sex, ect. is not an attack against them that they could be protected from. If we had not made it unlawful to treat others via such overt prejudice...we would still have slavery We got rid of slavery long before we instituted anti-discrimination laws. (and citizens such as women) who do not have equal rights under the law... If they could be discriminated against by private individuals, and they themselves could discriminate in similar ways the would have equal rights under the law. They may be put in an unfair situation but it would not be the law putting them in that situation. and who are therefore not full citizens as is their right under the Constitution. If the constitution, the law, and government all treat them the same then they are full citizens. Basically, you are asking for the RIGHT to be abusive toward people without rational cause No I am not. Refusing to hire, sell to, ect someone is not abusing them. To abuse them you would have to do something to them not just refrain from interacting with them. but violating the human right to equal treatment under the law is illegaL. Equal protection of the law has never been an issue in this entire debate. "Equal treatment under the law" is a rather vague concept. To the extent that it refers to equal treatment by the law and by government it is pretty much the same thing as equal protection of the law. To the extent that it refers to treatment by private individuals it is not a natural right, and in a broad sense it isn't even a legal right. You yourself have said more then once that people do not have to be treated equally. And you specifically said that it should not be illegal for people to refuse to have romantic or sexual or friendly relationships with people because of their race, sex, religion, ect. I agree with you on that, but if you think the law does and should allow for such unequal treatment then you are saying that there is neither a natural or legal right to demand equal treatment. Don't play games. You were trying to pretend that "unequal treatment under the law" as an uncivilized value was somehow countered by the very STUPID argumentive reference to the fact that we consider (rightfully so, I say) America to be civilized. Having uncivilized values DOES NOT vouchsafe a lack of civilization within society. I have already explained that adequately. I'm not playing games. I was responding to your stated position. Perhaps you didn't state your own viewpoint accurately at least in one two word sentence. You said you would disagree with the statement "Civilization has been around a lot longer then anti-discrimination laws. Such laws are not a requirement for or a necessary consequence of civilization." Apparently you consider the absence of such laws an uncivilized value but do not consider the presence of such laws to be "a requirement for or a necessary consequence of civilization." If this statement of your position is accurate then I think we are done with that part of the discussion. Tim