Rand Paul

[Kulindahr]

I in no way suggested that the business must be subjected to anything illegal. I was not promoting thievery. I was promoting fair trade between two human beings.

YOu weren't promoting fair trade, which is voluntary, but forced trade.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

YOu weren't promoting fair trade, which is voluntary, but forced trade.

You ask a fair price for a product, I offer you the set price. No force. I'm not taking it from you. I'm giving you exactly what you ask of any other human being who comes to you. How is that not fair?

 

[Kulindahr]

Ahah! Something we agree on! However, this is precisely what the expression "judicial activism" was coined to describe. Judges (conservative in this case) who twist laws to fit their political agenda. The goal was to keep "the homos" out of that revered old institution "the Boy Scouts." They couldn't find any legal support for their position, so the subverted years of case law and jurisprudence in order to effect the outcome they desired.

No, they overrode some years of dubious law that violated the right of freedom of association -- which must, to exist, include the right to NOT associate.

The "owner" of this intellectual property and resultant product has the right to seek "fair market value" but not to deny anyone the product if they are willing to pay the established price.

On mail order, that is true, because there is no association involved; thus freedom of association does not apply. One might argue freedom of expression, but I'm dubious about that when all one is expressing is Fed.

How about if government exists to protect us all, which includes preventing you from cheating me, at the same time it prevents me from cheating you. Pretty simple, and we don't have to repeal long-established civil rights laws to get there.

We're not talking about cheating, we're talking about voluntary association.

It is rational to expect a society founded on principles of liberty to follow through with the established rights it has bestowed to its citizenry.

Until that society starts inventing "rights" that violate self-ownership.

I can, at any time, change my mind about not selling a product if I so choose to. I do not have an obligation to have to sell anyone anything. That is the way it should be with respect to who it wants as customers. By not providing goods or services, said owner is not committing any aggression against others. Rather, he or she is merely exercising his or her right NOT to associate or NOT to contract. By forcing people to associate with, or contract with, persons whom they would otherwise reject, anti-discrimination laws are an attack on life and property. They are a form of coerced association. They give some people uncompensated claims on others. They amount to a form of slavery mediated by the State. Politically correct authoritarians like to hail each new set of anti-discrimination laws as an extension of human rights. Such laws are in fact VIOLATIONS of the only human rights that mean anything.

Yes: a right always includes its negative.

And when the law requires a person to perform a service for someone against his will, it's involuntary servitude.

This topic is getting rather stale.

Some people don't understand rights. There is no right to make someone do something.

 

[Kulindahr]

We've never had the right to insurrection for as long as we've had the Constitution. One of the enumerated powers of Congress is:
.

Enumerated powers are irrelevant to basic rights. An amendment limiting free speech could be passed; it would be invalid. An amendment establishing a religion could be passed; it would be invalid.

So we do not have the right to insurrection. The Amistad case had nothing to do with rebellion against the government.

It had to do with insurrection, period. Adams did not argue from a right of insurrection against tyrannical private acts, but against all such acts. In fact, given the references to a certain foreign government, it may be maintained that the case had specifically to do with insurrection against government.

And given that all those in the courtroom in official capacity had just come through an insurrection against government, they understood that.

and that that's a "basic premise of out nation". We don't have that right, and it's not a basic premise of the country.

Of course it's a basic premise of the country -- it's why there's a country at all. Recognize this?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course slavery is only wrong from that perspective if you consider your slave class equal citizens. As we know, the US didn't, for rather a long time, enjoy that concept. To the contrary, those slaves were property, and to argue that they should be liberated was to argue against private property.

No, it's wrong because all human beings are sentient, and thus own themselves.

But for the moment, we can table that. What argument do you have for a right to self-ownership that is not an appeal to emotion?

THe observed fact.

 

[MercuryJones]

And when the law requires a person to perform a service for someone against his will, it's involuntary servitude.

Of course no one is forced to open a business in which they are not permitted to discriminate by race.

 

[MercuryJones]

No, it's wrong because all human beings are sentient, and thus own themselves.

So you say, but if they are overpowered by another, why shouldn't they be enslaved?

 

[Kulindahr]

Neither. It may be said to exist to protect and ensure our rights. The right to property may be one, but it is not the only one.

If there is a right to property -- see my new thread.

In response to my question "Is there a good reason to not overturn the first amendment that is not an appeal to emotion?"

Yes: it is a direct expression of self-ownership.

Then it is equally rational to expect a society to follow through with the rights established through the Civil Rights Act.

Rights cannot be "established". They either exist or don't. Anything set up that is contrary to self-ownership is not a right.

That's why the crux of this issue is the concept of private property.

And in conclusion: You have no argument in support of Free Speech that is not an appeal to emotion.

False.

 

[Kulindahr]

Only because you're refusing to see the other side's point of view.

Tell me, if you're selling your product happily at, say, $100 per, and I walk up, $100 in hand. You've got a goodly supply right there in front of you, all of it marked "$100." What justification would you use in denying the product to me, while I watch the previous $100 customer walk away, product in hand?

Freedom of association, freedom of expression, and right of private property.

If there is a right to sell something, it entails the right to not sell. Coupled with freedom of association, the proprietor has the right to refuse to even let you in the store -- if the current concept of private property is held to.

I'll advance the proposal that Rand Paul' premise is based on that concept of private property -- and that it is erroneous.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

No, they overrode some years of dubious law that violated the right of freedom of association -- which must, to exist, include the right to NOT associate.

So, therein lies your whole argument, right? Association? Where did you get this twisted idea that every right includes a negative? And, since when does a sale constitute "association." If you sell me a product we're not associated. You sell it to me, bang. . . I'm gone. You don't necessarily have to ever see me again. Now, If you let me space within your store in which to sell MY products, THEN we're "associated."

You can let space in your shop to whomever you choose, or to no one at all.

 

[MercuryJones]

If there is a right to property -- see my new thread.
Rights cannot be "established". They either exist or don't. Anything set up that is contrary to self-ownership is not a right.

Well, you seem to have a bit of a problem, since the right to exclude people from public accommodation does not seem to exist in US law.

 

[Kulindahr]

Only because you're refusing to see the other side's point of view.

Tell me, if you're selling your product happily at, say, $100 per, and I walk up, $100 in hand. You've got a goodly supply right there in front of you, all of it marked "$100." What justification would you use in denying the product to me, while I watch the previous $100 customer walk away, product in hand?

"The other side" can't derive their position from self-ownership and the current concept of private property. Under those, there is no right at all for anyone to shop in a particular place.

You have to change the concept of property.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

"The other side" can't derive their position from self-ownership and the current concept of private property. Under those, there is no right at all for anyone to shop in a particular place.

You have to change the concept of property.

No, you need to change your concept of "association."

 

[JB3]

No, you need to change your concept of "association."

Kuli's argument is the correct one. Your conception of property, well, doesn't really exist.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, you seem to have a bit of a problem, since the right to exclude people from public accommodation does not seem to exist in US law.

Law is irrelevant to rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, you need to change your concept of "association."

Absolutely not. If freedom of association means freedom so long as not prohibited by law, then we should all shut up about the gay marriage issue and happily accept what the government has dictated.

That's why arguments about rights based on law are ridiculous: if rights are derived from law, then "fighting for your rights" when the law says something different is a fool's proposition, an illusion. It says that slavery was moral while it existed, that selling children is just fine where the law allows it.

Freedom of association is freedom of association, period; it means I can associate with those I wish and anyone who comes into my presence against my wishes is violating my rights. Under the current system of private property, my property is an extension of my self, so for you to even come into my store if I say you aren't allowed is an immoral act.

The problem is that the present system of private property is immoral -- and that's where the problem comes from.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Law is irrelevant to rights.

No, law picks-up where rights are in dispute.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, law picks-up where rights are in dispute.

That's irrelevant to what you quoted. Rights exist, regardless of law; it can neither make them nor take them away.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Kuli's argument is the correct one. Your conception of property, well, doesn't really exist.

My "conception of property?" And what, pray tell, is my conception of property?

 

[Kulindahr]

My "conception of property?" And what, pray tell, is my conception of property?

I think his point is that you don't seem to have one.