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 (80806)	6/25/2004 7:46:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

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. Yes if I hire you and you perform the work you have a right to be paid because of a contract. However if I don't want to hire you, you have no right to make me pay you anyway. "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. It could be protecting your natural rights. Nothing was stipulated about what rights where protected, the only thing that was mentioned was that it would allow private sector discrimination. Allowing for such discrimination does not infringe on anyone's natural rights. If there was extensive protection of peoples natural rights under such a system then the "equal protection of the law" would not be meaningless. In fact it might be more extensive protection then our current system because our current legal regime itself infringes on our natural rights with such things as anti-discrimination laws. "I normally would equate corruption with abuse" Now we are getting somewhere. Yes we are getting to the fact that I shouldn't post when I am in a hurry. I meant to say ""I normally would not equate corruption with abuse". Sorry for the mistake. I believe you equated it with being "vile" which is a synonym for "corrupt". Vile is a better synonym for disgusting the corrupt. There is overlap between the words vile and corrupt but not everything vile is corrupt, and perhaps not everything corrupt is vile. "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. You might be charged, if the law allows for it. But charged or not you would not be committing abuse. Remaining passive is not an abusive act. In this case remaining passive would be disgusting and if I knew a doctor who let a patient die because of his religion I wouldn't use that doctor's services, but that doesn't mean the doctor acted against the patient, he refrained from acting. Should a bigot be required, by force of law, to give blood to someone he hates if the person he hates would die without it? I view that situation pretty much the same as I view the situation with the bigoted doctor. I do think its wrong for the state to control the doctor or the potential blood donor and make them help someone else, but in such life or death situations such compulsive state force is more understandable. Most cases of illegal discrimination are not life and death issues. Even if the state compelling action in the extreme cases was acceptable, that doesn't mean it is acceptable in less critical situations. "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. I have mostly been talking about natural rights, not the current law or even the Constitution. The current anti-discrimination laws are not required by the constitution, and in their full extent not allowed for by it. In any case while laws in theory are obligated to conform to the constitution, in practice they do not always face such an obligation. The law might not be challenged, or the challenge might be incompetent, or the court might apply some other principle then what the constitution actually says. Therefore, laws may not be enacted arbitrarily. Laws are enacted arbitrarily all of the time. Arbitrarily does not equal unconstitutional, and in any case unconstitutional laws can and are enacted and sometimes allowed to stand. Tim