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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (122858)	6/2/2010 3:47:10 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Black lawmakers push to cut back new ethics office Jun 2 02:48 PM US/Eastern By BEN EVANS Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Nearly half of the members of the all-Democratic Congressional Black Caucus want to scale back the aggressive ethics procedures that Democrats trumpeted after gaining control of Congress. Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, and 19 fellow black lawmakers quietly introduced a resolution last week that would restrict the powers of the new independent Office of Congressional Ethics. The office, formed by Congress in 2008, is run by a panel of private citizens. Since its inception, the office has investigated at least eight black caucus members, including veteran Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. Fudge did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Some lawmakers say the increased transparency of the new office is unfair to lawmakers who are ultimately cleared.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (122858)	6/2/2010 4:02:20 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

crossofcrimson writes: "I have two questions. (1) Why doesn't the libertarian philosophy recognize that a restaurateur who refuses to serve blacks because of the color of their skin is hurting people? Why isn't that a harm that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing or redressing?" I won't currently address the second question as the response would be lengthy and probably better explained by someone else. But I'll attempt to entertain the first: I certainly don't speak for all libertarians, but I believe the answer to your first question would entail a discussion of the premise (one that libertarians would claim is a false one) of positive rights. The libertarian philosophy - or at least the version commonly discussed - views aggression and subsequent justice through the prism of negative rights. Coupled with a Lockean sense of property rights, this generally results in a focus on the Non-aggression principle. Coming from that perspective, the idea of a person choosing NOT to labor for another person (regardless of the reason - which can pose a sticky problem when trying to deduce it as such) is well within the "rights" of that individual. And the claim that you are "hurting" someone by choosing to not labor for them in some capacity would seem silly and unquestionably arbitrary to anyone who adhered to the NAP. In fact, to the libertarian, the party trying to force that particular actor to provide that service or good against their will would be the aggressor. There are many arguments in libertarian literature that expound upon these concepts far better than I can, but I always found the idea of positive rights to be peculiar. And placing it in the context of racial discrimination seems even more bizarre. If I don't want someone in my restaurant because they're wearing offensive clothing, can I refuse them service? What if they're openly carrying a gun? How about if their name is Jim and I simply happen to not like that? Or what if I only want people over five feet tall that are dressed in ties, including the women? Would I even have to make the preferences in my shop public or could I simply ask any given person to leave my property without explanation? If so, how would you determine the discriminating factor, if I had one at all? What seems even more arbitrary to me is the general concept that I owe someone my service and that refusing my services would somehow result in a tort. By that line of reasoning, simply deciding to close my shop at all, for any reason, would seem to be an abridgement of someone's freedoms. What if I simply decided to stay home that day and not serve food to anyone? Even if I was the only food establisment in town, would that be a crime? The thin red line for libertarians is indeed property. Let's say that for the past six months I have helped out a stranger and his family by giving him $300 a month to help him afford an apartment. After six months, I decide to stop helping him. He's now (in all probability) going to lose his apartment. Have I aggressed against him or his family? I think how you answer this question would be a fairly good indicator regarding your view of libertarian principles. If you're inclined to believe in positive rights, you could very well lean towards claiming this is an act of aggression. Libertarians will find the act as anything within the spectrum of "peachy" all the way up through "contemptable" - but they will not believe it to be aggression. To a libertarian, not being given something you never owned is a far cry from the injustice of having something stolen from you. econlog.econlib.org