A Solution to the discrimination argument

[Kulindahr]

There seems to be a flaw here. The land we put houses on is worked on by people. We don't simply plop houses and cities on top of wilderness. Humans have been shaping the land around us for thousands of years. We flatten hills, we carve tunnels, we take out trees, we put up trees, we put down sod, we grow vegetables/fruits. How is a farmer's plot not the fruit of his labor as surely as a rug is the fruit of someone's labor? There is little land left in the world that hasn't been shaped in some way by human hands. Is that not labor? The land all around us is the fruit of peoples' labor. And the buildings that sit on top of much of them are also as much the end result of someone's labor as farmland is. Your argument here seems to depend on the notion that we simply build houses, cities, barns, offices, etcetera on whatever land we happen to find, as is. Which is rarely the case.

No, it depends on the fact that we don't make the land -- we merely rearrange it. What we do with land is comparable to adding a bit of dye to wool.

If land were truly the fruit of people's labor, we could increase the amount of it. A manufacturer can increase the amount of clothes, another of the amount of vodka. People can use of the shoes, until the are thrown away; people can consume jello shots, and use up vodka. But we do not throw away land; if we did, there would be holes in the earth where there was no longer a surface.

If someone gathered material from somewhere and built a new planet, that would have manufactured land; it would truly be the fruit of the labor of those who put it together. But the earth and its land were here before us, and will remain after us.

Even building land by filling in wet places isn't manufacturing land, it's still just rearranging it; it was land before, just land that happened to be under water.

 

[MisterMajestic]

This is a good thread. The people that poke their heads in the door thinking they have the "master" argument and they don't need to engage their opponents are the most disappointing.

No...What's disappointing is the fact that some middle-aged White Men that think like Rand Paul still hold on to their Daddy's ways of thinking...They keep Discrimination ALIVE against Minorities & the Gay Community..


Think about it..Rand is a year or 2 younger than Barack Obama..Both grew up during the civil rights movement and reaped the benefits from "the change"...Yet Rand was raised to think Blacks should still be treated unequally & like 2nd class citizens..Then you have Barack's White Mother & Grand Parents raising him to believe he can achieve whatever he wants out of life as long as he studies hard...

Barack's Mother was on the right page raising him not to think he was "less" than anyone else just because of skin Color...Somewhere along the way Rand's Mother, Father or somebody filled his head with "warp ideas" of "entitlement" that stayed with him all his life...

Rand should NEVER be seated as a United States Senator...

 

[Kulindahr]

No...What's disappointing is the fact that some middle-aged White Men that think like Rand Paul still hold on to their Daddy's ways of thinking...They keep Discrimination ALIVE against Minorities & the Gay Community..

Since his daddy's way of thinking is mostly to oppose anything not authorized by the Constitution, that's an excellent thing for him to have.

Think about it..Rand is a year or 2 younger than Barack Obama..Both grew up during the civil rights movement and reaped the benefits from "the change"...Yet Rand was raised to think Blacks should still be treated unequally & like 2nd class citizens..Then you have Barack's White Mother & Grand Parents raising him to believe he can achieve whatever he wants out of life as long as he studies hard...

Barack's Mother was on the right page raising him not to think he was "less" than anyone else just because of skin Color...Somewhere along the way Rand's Mother, Father or somebody filled his head with "warp ideas" of "entitlement" that stayed with him all his life...

When you lie about Paul's position, it doesn't help. He isn't interested in making anyone "second class citizens", which you'd understand if you'd listened.

Besides that, given the notion of private property, he's right. In reality, with that basis, the current laws make business owners second class citizens.

Rand should NEVER be seated as a United States Senator...

If he votes like his father, he'll make a great senator. If we had thirty more like him, it might be possible to get government to adhere to the Constitution.

 

[MisterMajestic]

(Since his daddy's way of thinking is mostly to oppose anything not authorized by the Constitution, that's an excellent thing for him to have.)

....LOL...Dude.....Daddy Ron Paul made RACIST comments for decades...Do your Homework...Rand is just like his old-man...Just a Fucking middle-Aged Good'Ol boy in the making...You've made Tons of Negative comments about Minorities in this very forum so no JUBER is surprised you're Defending Rand's Moronic statement about the 60's CRA....

(When you lie about Paul's position, it doesn't help. He isn't interested in making anyone "second class citizens", which you'd understand if you'd listened.)

Oh I watched, listened and i don't care to hear anymore or Rand's warped views on the Civil Rights Acts...He spent a 24hr-cycle TRYING to clean up his Shitty-Mess..He was'nt MAN enough to stand by his true feelings about Civil Rights and Discimination against Blacks...Fear made him Flip-Flop but we know what's in his heart..

(Besides that, given the notion of private property, he's right. In reality, with that basis, the current laws make business owners second class citizens.)

You are still going back & forth believing that Rand's statement was simply about protecting business owners rights...Rand BELIEVES that White American business owners should have the RIGHT to DENY services to Black American Patrons...Period.... Now stop the bullshit...

(If he votes like his father, he'll make a great senator. If we had thirty more like him, it might be possible to get government to adhere to the Constitution.)

..LOL...You're so comical...I'm certain you said the same thing when you voted for Old-Man Mccain & that Alaskan Bitch back in 2008...They got what they deserved during the General election and I HOPE beyond HOPE Rand gets his in November..........................

 

[MisterMajestic]

He was elected. Say what you have to say about the electorate.

Dude...He won the Republican Primary..The general election is held in November..He will LOSE...Just watch...

 

[MercuryJones]

Any system of laws also functions only as well as the morality of a people. Just as an example, the more moral a people, the fewer laws are needed in the first place, and the ones which exist will be less often violated. As another, the less moral the people, the more frequently the police and courts will misuse their power, and the less the people will object.

Or, the more moral a people the more laws will exist to ensure the vulnerable are not harmed by the immoral.

But a system of laws will also only function as well as their philosophical foundation. Our philosophical concept of private property leads to the position held by Rand Paul, that discrimination by business owners is perfectly acceptable...

Our concept? I think there are some competing concepts flying around.

 

[MercuryJones]

Dude...He won the Republican Primary..The general election is held in November..

 

[justapixel]

Then you have Barack's White Mother & Grand Parents raising him to believe he can achieve whatever he wants out of life as long as he studies hard

Obama disowned his White Mother & Grandparents who raised him.

Please see his census choices.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Obama disowned his White Mother & Grandparents who raised him.

Please see his census choices.

Checking a box on the census doesn't negate parentage. There are many (I'd venture to say the vast majority of) African-Americans who identify as African-Americans, yet have some degree of Caucasian blood. A large part of how we all "identify" is our appearance. . . how we are perceived by others.

Obama gracefully and gratefully acknowledges his white parentage. He makes no secret of them and shows them all due respect and reverence. Indeed, he adored them and appreciates everything they did for him in his life.

Your need to over-analyze his heritage and his personal choices speaks more of you than of him.

 

[MercuryJones]

Obama disowned his White Mother & Grandparents who raised him.

Please see his census choices.

I'd say the culture disowned them, by identifying anyone with the appearance of any African ancestry as "Black".

 

[bankside]

I'd say the culture disowned them, by identifying anyone with the appearance of any African ancestry as "Black".

Except when anyone agrees with the idea that a person has every right to acknowledge their whole ancestry, then they're told that they have no business doing that because "culture disowned them."

Who makes culture if not me and you? If I can see and understand that Obama's heritage comes from different places, where is this "culture" coming from to say otherwise?

It just doesn't make sense.

PS. Sorry Kulindahr and all about the off-topic but at least it touches on the notion of discrimination tangentially..

 

[MercuryJones]

Except when anyone agrees with the idea that a person has every right to acknowledge their whole ancestry, then they're told that they have no business doing that because "culture disowned them."

Wait, when anyone agrees that people have the right to choose to acknowledge their whole ancestry, that happens? Really?

Respectfully, was you morning coffee fortified with drama?

Also "Black" isn't a statement of ancestry. It's a statement of race, which is a cultural construct. And in our culture your race is basically what you look like - not what your ancestry is.

Who makes culture if not me and you? If I can see and understand that Obama's heritage comes from different places, where is this "culture" coming from to say otherwise?

Me, you and a whole lot of other people, in aggregate.

 

[NotThatCreative]

No, it depends on the fact that we don't make the land -- we merely rearrange it. What we do with land is comparable to adding a bit of dye to wool.

Since, colliders excepted, we can't create matter, it's clear all we're doing with everything is rearranging it.

If land were truly the fruit of people's labor, we could increase the amount of it. A manufacturer can increase the amount of clothes, another of the amount of vodka. People can use of the shoes, until the are thrown away; people can consume jello shots, and use up vodka. But we do not throw away land; if we did, there would be holes in the earth where there was no longer a surface.

I define the fruit of someone's labor as being related to whether or not they, you know, labored on it. This is the obvious way to define it. Your definition seems totally arbitrary.

And even if I were to accept your definition of something being the "fruit of people's labor" it still fails to exclude land. Unless you're also excluding things like oil and coal. Are you?

 

[Kulindahr]

....LOL...Dude.....Daddy Ron Paul made RACIST comments for decades...Do your Homework...Rand is just like his old-man...Just a Fucking middle-Aged Good'Ol boy in the making...You've made Tons of Negative comments about Minorities in this very forum so no JUBER is surprised you're Defending Rand's Moronic statement about the 60's CRA....

1. Look at Paul'svoting record: most of his votes are based on whether or not the Constitution authorizes something -- it's why he's known in Congress as "Doctor No".

2. I see you've learned spin from Limbaugh: first you tell people what someone else said, then you proclaim your (poorly documented) subjective opinion as truth.

Oh I watched, listened and i don't care to hear anymore or Rand's warped views on the Civil Rights Acts...He spent a 24hr-cycle TRYING to clean up his Shitty-Mess..He was'nt MAN enough to stand by his true feelings about Civil Rights and Discimination against Blacks...Fear made him Flip-Flop but we know what's in his heart..

All emotion -- which is why you have warped views on so many things.

You are still going back & forth believing that Rand's statement was simply about protecting business owners rights...Rand BELIEVES that White American business owners should have the RIGHT to DENY services to Black American Patrons...Period.... Now stop the bullshit...

So you didn't actually listen.
He believes that any owner should be allowed to deny entrance to anyone at all. That's what he said. But continue with your

http://justusboys.com/forum/userimages/1/2/7/5/2/8/thumbs/297159.jpg
..LOL...You're so comical...I'm certain you said the same thing when you voted for Old-Man Mccain & that Alaskan Bitch back in 2008...They got what they deserved during the General election and I HOPE beyond HOPE Rand gets his in November..........................[/QUOTE]

Try reading the forum before you throw lies around

 

[Kulindahr]

Or, the more moral a people the more laws will exist to ensure the vulnerable are not harmed by the immoral.

No, because a moral people will do that without need for laws. A moral people would provide for the poor without need for laws, and for the disabled. That we have numerous people worth billions and they do nothing for those on the bottom but pay a lower tax rate than some of those on the bottom is a measure of the morality of our society -- and we get a solid F.

Our concept? I think there are some competing concepts flying around.

Our concept as a society is based on force. Trace most property titles to their origins, and it's about force. That's not a rational foundation.
And core to our concept of private property is the ability to do as you wish with it. Given that concept, Rand Paul is, sadly, right. But it isn't surprising that an immoral result will arise from an immoral foundation.

 

[Kulindahr]

Except when anyone agrees with the idea that a person has every right to acknowledge their whole ancestry, then they're told that they have no business doing that because "culture disowned them."

Like a guy I know about who got refused entry to some club because he was "Asian", and it was for whites -- despite the fact that only one grandparent was Korean.

He got in, anyway, because an elderly gentleman inside had known one grandfather -- on the beaches at Normandy, where both earned medals -- and knew that his father, all white, had earned a Silver star and a batch of other things; plus that the other grandfather had earned a medal in Korea and brought home a wife.

Crazy, huh?

PS. Sorry Kulindahr and all about the off-topic but at least it touches on the notion of discrimination tangentially..

Oh, if it gets too bad, I'll holler.

 

[MercuryJones]

No, because a moral people will do that without need for laws. A moral people would provide for the poor without need for laws, and for the disabled.

But in no case will people be uniformly moral, even in a very narrow sense. If 90% are moral, 10% may still do grave harm to others. Hence laws are needed to deal with the 10%. And with so many people being so moral, it may be decided that even more laws are needed because a super majority would share some moral positions.

In the case of a less moral people - let's say 55%, there may be fewer laws because the moral - while a majority - may not have the numbers needed to pass laws to contend with the other 45%.

And in a model in which the very moral are a minority - let's say 25% - they are very unlikely to have much impact on laws, because the immoral majority will wants not want to be constrained.

Our concept as a society is based on force. Trace most property titles to their origins, and it's about force. That's not a rational foundation.
And core to our concept of private property is the ability to do as you wish with it. Given that concept, Rand Paul is, sadly, right. But it isn't surprising that an immoral result will arise from an immoral foundation.

All of life, from the most simple organisms to the most complex is about a struggle over resources. Thus will it ever be. There is physical force and economic force. Whether you enslave a minority through whips and beatings or by denying them access to normal social interaction and commerce, you're still using force.

If we can justly say no one is permitted to enslave others by force, it's not too far a jump to say one cannot enslave them through economic force.

(Incidentally, Paul has some very funny ideas about private property when it comes to abortion and same sex marriage, but I don't wish to distract from your thread's subject, and will try to keep those points in the other thread.)

 

[Kulindahr]

Also "Black" isn't a statement of ancestry. It's a statement of race, which is a cultural construct. And in our culture your race is basically what you look like - not what your ancestry is.
.

Actually -- it isn't.

Since this thread is meant to look at rational roots of the issue of discrimination (readers take note), I'll bring in one: the human genome project people have said that scientifically speaking there's no such thing as race.

So to speak of "races" of humans is an expression of prejudice or ignorance. Since there hasn't been a great deal of time for the Project's news to disseminate, I'll allow ignorance.

So discrimination boils down to "I don't like the way you look".

But under my CotW idea, that would become irrelevant for business owners, because those people they object to would be members of the corporation holding title to the land on which their business sat -- and they would have no authority to deny entry to a member of the corporation.

And Rachel Maddow would be able to look Rand Paul in the eye and tell him he was spouting irrational, unscientific prejudice -- and be one hundred percent right.


As a side effect, members of the corporation would receive equal checks as dividends from the land rent -- making everyone equal in that way, too. So the business owner would be paying rent to those people he didn't like, while they'd be spending money he paid, right in his own shop. Big Momma (if the awesome woman is still alive in St. Louis) would get a check equal to that of Obama, and little Nate would get one equal to theirs and Bill Gates.

To me, to use one of Momma's phrases, "That would be jess fahn".

 

[MercuryJones]

^^

Although you wrote "it isn't", I think we're saying essentially the same thing: there is no such thing as race, as a biological matter. Am I mistaken in thinking we agree on this?

There is a construct called race that essentially amounts to a categorization of people based on some visual cues that generally have something to do with ancestry, but even that is subjective. Perhaps you disagreed with me on that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Since, colliders excepted, we can't create matter, it's clear all we're doing with everything is rearranging it.

In a very general sense, yes. But rearrange all we want, land is still land; we neither create it nor destroy it, nor transform it into anything else.

I define the fruit of someone's labor as being related to whether or not they, you know, labored on it. This is the obvious way to define it. Your definition seems totally arbitrary.

Not arbitrary at all: the fruit of one's labor is that which was produced by that labor. A car, a paint gun, a baby blanket -- those are all fruits of someone's labor. Land isn't.

And even if I were to accept your definition of something being the "fruit of people's labor" it still fails to exclude land. Unless you're also excluding things like oil and coal. Are you?

It can't include land -- we don't manufacture land. We discover it, map it, survey it, assign it, but we can't make it, nor can we destroy it.

Oil, coal, and other resources are part of the land. Fees for their extraction would also be paid into the corporation, and be part of dividends (rather like Alaska does).

And since they're part of land, no discrimination against any members of the corporation could be done in their extraction, either.

But these are a good place to note the difference between a naturally occurring resource, which rationally belongs to everyone in union, and a fruit of labor: the petroleum taken from the ground is a resource; the various components into which it's cracked and refined are the fruit of labor. And in an "anything to oil" thermal depolymerization plant, it would all be the fruit of labor, because the raw materials are (generally) the fruit of labor.