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: TimF who wrote (80802)	6/25/2004 7:17:35 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Someone else's money is property that they have a right to" Being paid is a property right, as I said. Your labor was yours. You exchanged it for the promise of money. Once you have transferred your labor the money is legally yours. "Being paid" is just the process of collecting what belongs to you. "If all people in their private sector interactions where allowed to racially discriminate you would still have equal protection of the law." Such "protection" would be meaningless, because the law would not be protecting your natural rights. There has to be protection OF SOMETHING if we are to talk rationally about protection of something. The something that is being referred to is fundamental human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Law is the process and procedure of attempting to secure and honor those rights. "But if the law provides any protection, and provides it fairly and impartially then you have equal protection of the law." We are not talking about equal protection of nothing. We are talking about equal protection of something. Do you know what that "something" is, yet? "I normally would equate corruption with abuse" Now we are getting somewhere. "In any case I'm not sure that I would consider discrimination to be corrupt" I believe you equated it with being "vile" which is a synonym for "corrupt". "But saying "I will have no dealings with you", and then following up on that promise is not an act of abuse." That is simplistic nonsense. If you are a doctor refusing to save a life because of the religion of the patient, you would be charged. If you were a hotel owner refusing to rent a bed to a tired white person (on the basis of her colour) you would be sued...Because those behaviours are abusive and beneath the tolerance of a civilized society. "I think you are of the opinion that laws outlawing such discrimination in social events would be an injustice am I correct?" Yes. EDIT: I was reading too fast. I do not mean ALL social events. A family reunion could certainly restrict who sits at table. There are mnany other examples. Where it becomes fundamentally debased and harmful to human freedom is where the playing field is fundamentally skewed by irrational and insane people through overt hate and prejudice. It is funny (or sad) that we are having this argument. I am more gung ho for human rights than almost anyone. But I have lived long enought to appreciate that where resources are finite (the planet earth, your country, or your community), then prejudice must be limited by Government. Otherwise, the Constitution is just a farce and a wink from fat pricks who will use their power and prejudice to destroy and impose. There is no right to freedom where the right to prejudice and unfair treatment is elevated to social acceptance. The laws have been enacted to reflect the Constitution. If you disagree with them you can argue with your High Court. Or you could go away for the weekend for white water rafting as I am doing. But let me tell you from experience: Argue your case and have fun with life. But don't grind your teeth over it. You and I are just a wink. We better not miss it... "If so what the law allows and doesn't allow isn't really the issue" It is the biggest part of the issue. The law is obligated to conform to the Constitution and not to offend it. Therefore, laws may not be enacted arbitrarily. If a law is unconstitutional then it is unlawful. "Telling me you wont hand out with me because I'm a white male"..."would also not be an assault against me." I suppose that is a colloquialism. In any event, I don't know what "hand out with me" entails. But if it has anything to do with breaking the laws against discrimination for irrational reasons where thoughtful people have determined that issues of freedom, equality, and justice are at stake...then I would call it an offense--for sure. "there is a fundamental difference between attacking someone, and ignoring them" Surely. Attacking someone is sometimes wrong. Ignoring someone is sometimes wrong. Attacking someone is sometimes right. We have laws, courts, judges, and jurors to determine when is which.