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 (80798)	6/25/2004 6:22:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"But there is no right of others to demand that you pay them" Sorry. Being paid is a property right. Someone else's money is property that they have a right to. If you agree to work for them and they agree to pay you, then you have a contractual right to the money. If there is no agreement then you have no right to the money. Perhaps you can help me to understand better what is troubling you about people being granted their legal right to protection under the law. Nothing is troubling me about equal protection of the law, but that isn't the issue we are talking about. If all people in their private sector interactions where allowed to racially discriminate you would still have equal protection of the law. If the law itself discriminated in such a manner then your would not have equal protection of the law. "Protection under the law" could mean protection of anything so its fairly meaningless. and they themselves could discriminate in similar ways the would have equal rights under the law." And that argues what? If the only law in existence was "KILL OR BE KILLED", we would all have equal rights under the law, too. There really wouldn't be any law. Definitely no law that provided us with any protection. But if the law provides any protection, and provides it fairly and impartially then you have equal protection of the law. 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." ABUSE: "1 : a corrupt practice or custom" m-w.com. I normally would equate corruption with abuse, at least not all corrupt customs are specifically abusive of anyone. Generally the term abuse is only used for an abusive action against someone. In any case I'm not sure that I would consider discrimination to be corrupt. It could be completely honest and open, and someone who is a bigot could still honor all of his commitments even to those he is bigoted against. If the corruption includes deception of someone, or an attack against them (perhaps even a verbal one if it is harsh and unwarranted) then it is abusive. But saying "I will have no dealings with you", and then following up on that promise is not an act of abuse. Looking at it from another perspective I see no moral justification for forcing someone to have business dealings with people that they are bigoted against then I see justification of forcing them to have social relationships with people they are bigoted against. There may be more practical justification because anti-discrimination laws applied to business are more likely to have a positive practical effect then similar laws applied to social relationships, but either would be an assault against freedom and people's natural rights. I am saying that the law allows for a degree of prejudice (the right to love whom you will) and disallows certain extreme prejudice (the "right" to keep slaves, the "right" to refuse a bus ticket or airline ticket to a citizen because she is a Christian or a Jew or an atheist. Is it just a matter of what the law allows? The law could have been set up to allow racial discrimination in business dealings or it could be set up to forbid such discrimination in social dealings (that would be hard to enforce, but such a law could have been created). I think you are of the opinion that laws outlawing such discrimination in social events would be an injustice am I correct? If so what the law allows and doesn't allow isn't really the issue. The issue is what is just for the law to allow or not allow. Poisoning my food would be an assault against me. Telling me you wont hand out with me because I'm a white male, or you wont hire me because I'm a white male would also not be an assault against me. They aren't like poisoning my food, they would both be more like refusing to cook my food. Its not just a difference in degree, there is a fundamental difference between attacking someone, and ignoring them. Laws against poisoning food and laws against rape outlaw forms of attacks. Anti-discrimination laws outlaw ignoring someone for certain reasons. Tim