Where do your rights begin and mine end?

Tomahawk · Oct 31, 2007

imported post

Wynder wrote:

Exactly. The only time discrimination really hurts anybody is when it is backed by violence.

Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate, take this back 50 years or so when no one would serve African Americans and they weren't allowed to own stores. When you have a super-majority, couldn't an entire class of people can outed of a service?

While your statement is pretty true to form in these times, I'd gamble to say that, in the times these laws started to come to form, it wasn't.

Jim Crow laws were squarely in the category of "discrimination backed by violence". As you stated in yuor post, African-Americans weren't allowed to own stores (not sure if that's accurate, but let's assume it is). Who didn't allow them to own stores? The lawmakers, and those lawmakers were backed up by men with badges and guns. The threat of violence is explicit and clear.

There is a difference between a storeowner who doesn't want to do business with you because of your skin and a government law that forces him not to do business because of your skin. The former is merely a racist a--hole who cannot legally use force against you, the latter is a threat to the liberty of all citizens that presumes a monopoly of the use of force.

Wynder · Oct 31, 2007

imported post

ne1 wrote:

John Locke was an English philosopher and property rights are a European concept. (Didn't America fight a war to be free from those bonds?)American land was taken from the native inhabitants by force of arms.

No, we didn't fight a way to be free from philosophical concepts; however, if you're refering to European concepts, no, we did not fight a war to free ourselves from that, either. In fact, our law is still based on English common law -- several European concepts are still in our society today... We fought for the right to be able to own property, speak freely and practice whatever religion we chose. That's not possible under a monarchy.

As for our land being seized from the natives... well, as sad as a point as that's become in our history, to the victor goes the spoils of war.

Governments are not natural either. They are a creation of man for man's benefit. When they cease to be perceived as a benefit then governments too can be replaced.

Amen. No argument there.

No one is forcing anyone else to open a business, but when you do you must observe all laws pertaining to such business.

No real argument there; however, once again trying to play Devil's Advocate, lets suppsoe that someones business is also their home -- maybe a home daycare or a storefront with a bedroom upstairs. With the smoking ban, does that, in effect, ban someone from smoking in their house completely?

The framers gave us an unlimited ability to contract. Granted, it's been a while since I've looked what goes into actually setting up a business, but in obtaining a business liscence, I'm sure some of our rights, as property owners, are signed away in setting up our property as a place of business... I just wonder to what extent.

Wynder · Oct 31, 2007

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Jim Crow laws were squarely in the category of "discrimination backed by violence". As you stated in yuor post, African-Americans weren't allowed to own stores (not sure if that's accurate, but let's assume it is). Who didn't allow them to own stores? The lawmakers, and those lawmakers were backed up by men with badges and guns. The threat of violence is explicit and clear.

Good idea, I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate; however, if we even roll it back 100 years, we can be fairly certain that it didn't happen.

I can see a scenario where an African-American could fill out a form for a business license, take it to the county office, submit it with the fee and he'd simply have it denied. He could continue to submit an application and continue to be denied -- with no threat of force.

I can see where that same person would try to buy property from a realtor or private party who would not sell it to him simply because he's black. No lawmakers or officers there.

Keep in mind, that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just seeing if I can make points that will either prove or disprove that, at the time these laws were made, if they were legally/morally/socially/whateverly justified.

The former is merely a racist a--hole who cannot legally use force against you, the latter is a threat to the liberty of all citizens that presumes a monopoly of the use of force.

So, did the lawmakers make the laws so they, themselves, would make laws that are fair/take suffrage into account?

Tomahawk · Oct 31, 2007

imported post

Wynder wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Jim Crow laws were squarely in the category of "discrimination backed by violence". As you stated in yuor post, African-Americans weren't allowed to own stores (not sure if that's accurate, but let's assume it is). Who didn't allow them to own stores? The lawmakers, and those lawmakers were backed up by men with badges and guns. The threat of violence is explicit and clear.

Click to expand...

....I can see a scenario where an African-American could fill out a form for a business license, take it to the county office, submit it with the fee and he'd simply have it denied. He could continue to submit an application and continue to be denied -- with no threat of force....

No, the threat of force is still there, very much so.

The state has forced you to get a license to go about your business, on the state's terms. If the state denies you a license based on your skin color and you decide to resist it and exercise your right to conduct business anyway, you will be paid a visit by somestate employeeswith guns.

The fact that a piece of paper has been inserted as a buffer bewteen your business and the state's force doesn't mean the force isn't there, it only masks it behind officialdom. In the end, the state demands you submit to the state's will or violence ensues.

I can see where that same person would try to buy property from a realtor or private party who would not sell it to him simply because he's black. No lawmakers or officers there.

Correct. In this case the realtor is a private party and you may defend yourself against any violence they bring to bear. The realtor is discriminating against you, maybe because you're black, or maybe some other reason. He doesn't have to explain himself, and you don't ahve to do business with him. Go find another realtor or buy the house directly.

The main difference between the two examples is that in the business license example, you don't have a choice not to do business with the government. Any attempt to go around government licensing makes you an outlaw and subject to violence if you resist. With the realtor, you can choose not to deal with him. Choosing another realtor or method to buy a house doesn't make you an outlaw, and he canot bring violence to bear against you.

And as before, the realtor is missing out on business some other realtor may be happy to take.

EDIT: In some cases, the realtor mayhave connections in thegovernment that allow him to run a near-monopoly. If that is the case, theproblem isn't private discrimination, it's the use of government force.

A good example is the guild of restaurant owners in Virginia. They wantconcealed handguns banned in their businesses. Any business-owner can do this without a law, of course, it's his right. But they don't like the bad publicity that comes with banning patrons, so they lobby the state government to maintain the restriction on CC in restaurants. This isn't a problem with private parties discriminating, it's a problem with state power being used to favor one group (restaurant owners) over another (CHP-holders).

Wynder · Oct 31, 2007

imported post

Tomahawk wrote

No, the threat of force is still there, very much so.

The state has forced you to get a license to go about your business, on the state's terms. If the state denies you a license based on your skin color and you decide to resist it and exercise your right to conduct business anyway, you will be paid a visit by somestate employeeswith guns.

Mind you, I'm trying to think of this in terms of a society that precipitated discrimination laws.

So, with this situation, considering just the fact that someone applied for a license and was turned down based on the color of his skin and he didn't attempt to operate that business or, in any other way, retaliate. Just that act... I'd liken that to a sherrif not issuing a CHP in a will-issue state. What's to prevent a clerk from doing that again?

And as before, the realtor is missing out on business some other realtor may be happy to take.

See, here, I'm thinking south... deep south a bit after slaves were freed. All of the whites controlled everything and it was impossible for a newly freed slave to own anything there. There wasn't anyone else they could go to -- no one else would take their business. They couldn't patronize any other establishments.

Just for the purpose of this discussion, I'm thinking of it in those terms because, someday in the future, some social stigma may be the new discriminated class... maybe, 200 years from now, they'll discover that slightly overweight people who wear eyeglasses are the primary cause of cancer and not smoking... in which case, I'd be in a lot of trouble.

Granted, in todays PC society, your thoughts are valid... but in the time they were written, it was a completely different social environment.

CA_Libertarian · Oct 31, 2007

imported post

Wynder wrote:

Exactly. The only time discrimination really hurts anybody is when it is backed by violence.

Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate, take this back 50 years or so when no one would serve African Americans and they weren't allowed to own stores....

You're illustrating my point. 50 years ago if a black person opened a store in the wrong neighborhood it would probably be burnt to the ground. That's backing bias with violence.

ETA: I completely missed the posts on page 2... As for the 'denied license' argument: If you have to get a permit the implication is that failure to do so will result in thugs with guns coming to shut you down.

This, of course, brings us into the debate as to the legitimacy of government forcing its subjects (we the people) to beg permission to conduct lawful activities.

Wynder · Oct 31, 2007

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote

You're illustrating my point. 50 years ago if a black person opened a store in the wrong neighborhood it would probably be burnt to the ground. That's backing bias with violence.

ETA: I completely missed the posts on page 2... As for the 'denied license' argument: If you have to get a permit the implication is that failure to do so will result in thugs with guns coming to shut you down.

This, of course, brings us into the debate as to the legitimacy of government forcing its subjects (we the people) to beg permission to conduct lawful activities.

That's assuming they would've been able to open a store in the first place... not withstanding getting a business license, but code inspections, general contracting, purchasing of items to resale, etc... If one, two or all of these people discriminated against the African-American, then that person would be unable to engage of commerce, not for lack of funds, but simply because of the color of his skin.

I'm trying to put things into a view of 'before a business has even opened'... the hoops that anyone would have had to jump through in order to open a store and just how impossible it would have been for someone of color to have completed it scores of years ago.

CA_Libertarian · Oct 31, 2007

imported post

Wynder wrote:

That's assuming they would've been able to open a store in the first place... not withstanding getting a business license, but code inspections, general contracting, purchasing of items to resale, etc... If one, two or all of these people discriminated against the African-American, then that person would be unable to engage of commerce, not for lack of funds, but simply because of the color of his skin.

I'm trying to put things into a view of 'before a business has even opened'... the hoops that anyone would have had to jump through in order to open a store and just how impossible it would have been for someone of color to have completed it scores of years ago.

Let me use a local example: a guy a couple 'country miles' down the road from where I grew up had a yard sale. This yard sale occupied about half an acre and lasted about 6 years before it was shut down. The county officials finally came around and told him he owed back taxes and fines for not getting a permit.

He was engaged in commerce on his own property without hurting anybody. Why could a black person not do this 50 years ago? The same reason this old white man couldn't today: threat of violence. If he would have refused (or been unable) to pay back taxes and fines, then men with guns would have come and kicked in his door to take him to jail.

You're approaching the subject under the assumption one will comply with unconstitutional laws from the get-go. This is not necessarily the case. Try to keep in mind that those laws are only effective when backed by violence.

So, a black man in 50 years ago could have done the same. The only thing to stop him would be if someone came along and used force (i.e. jail, lynching, etc).

Tomahawk · Oct 31, 2007

imported post

Wynder wrote:

See, here, I'm thinking south... deep south a bit after slaves were freed. All of the whites controlled everything and it was impossible for a newly freed slave to own anything there. There wasn't anyone else they could go to -- no one else would take their business. They couldn't patronize any other establishments.

I hear you, and those are certainly tough circumstances. But is the solution to force white business owners to do business according to some state criteria rather than their own judgement? Many civil rights activists think so, and that logic is the basis for every form of affirmative action and forced wheelchair ramp installation today.

Problem is that, if you are black and you use the force of government to force racist white proprietors to do business with you, you have now set a precedent that can reach back to bite you or your children some day, when the shoe is on the other foot.

It's important to protect the rights not only of your friends but your adverseries as well, for that reason.

In the particular case you're speaking of, I can't help but think that it was the institutionalization of race discrimination in state and local government that was doing the damage. Even in the most racist neighborhood, there are bound to be people willing to do business. Money talks.

The solution to oppressive government is, in this order, political activism, followed if necessary by revolt. As a famous man, ironically a slaveowner himself, once wrote:

[align=left]When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.[/align]

Wynder · Nov 1, 2007

imported post

But is the solution to force white business owners to do business according to some state criteria rather than their own judgement?

We've hit on the nerve of the entire subject here, I think. And I don't know if this question can really be answered. Forced segregation, voting suffrage and anti-discrimination laws most certainly pushed us there a lot earlier than we would have gone by ourselves. I do think that, conversely, without those laws, some places might still be as discriminatory as they were back then.

Wynder · Nov 1, 2007

imported post

He was engaged in commerce on his own property without hurting anybody... You're approaching the subject under the assumption one will comply with unconstitutional laws from the get-go.

CA_Lib,

I'm just curious, but how are business licenses and taxation unconstitutional? Article I, Section 7 gives congress the ability to regulate commerce and levy taxes, but I didn't see anything in there regarding a protection for the right of commerce. Still trying to be non-confrontational here, but I'm really not sure where you're seeing it being unconstitutional.

CA_Libertarian · Nov 1, 2007

imported post

Wynder wrote:

He was engaged in commerce on his own property without hurting anybody... You're approaching the subject under the assumption one will comply with unconstitutional laws from the get-go.

Click to expand...

CA_Lib,

I'm just curious, but how are business licenses and taxation unconstitutional? Article I, Section 7 gives congress the ability to regulate commerce and levy taxes, but I didn't see anything in there regarding a protection for the right of commerce. Still trying to be non-confrontational here, but I'm really not sure where you're seeing it being unconstitutional.

Is it your contention that A1,S8 gives unlimited power to regulate and tax? If the Congress decided to impose a 100% income tax would you pay it? How about 75%? 50% (some already pay this, but let's say this was a universal income tax)?

Wynder · Nov 1, 2007

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Is it your contention that A1,S8 gives unlimited power to regulate and tax? If the Congress decided to impose a 100% income tax would you pay it? How about 75%? 50% (some already pay this, but let's say this was a universal income tax)?

There's nothing in there that limits it -- in fact, during WWII the top tax bracket of married couples hit 90% and remained close to that amount for close to two decades. This was in the highest bracket and over an absurd amount of money, but the Government has done this in the past. (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php)

Now, I'm not a tax lawyer, so I don't know if there are laws regulating to what extent Congress can or cannot tax; however, looking strictly at the Constitution, as sucky as is sounds, it looks that way.

That being said, I'd PRAY there's something that would limit the tax rate the government imposes.

Doug Huffman · Nov 1, 2007

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Is it your contention that A1,S8 gives unlimited power to regulate and tax

Art I 8:1a "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Art I 9:4a "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." was the subject of the Sixteenth Amendment,

Amd XVI 1:1a "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without any apportionment among the several States,and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The 'income tax' is a direct tax first mentioned in Art I 2:3a and amended by Amd XIV 2:1a. It is subsequently mentioned as uniform throughout the United States and proportional to some enumeration. Only with Amd XVI was the income tax as we currently suffer legal.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$

Tomahawk · Nov 1, 2007

imported post

Wynder wrote:

I'm just curious, but how are business licenses and taxation unconstitutional?

Constitutional? Or moral?

Heartless_Conservative · Nov 3, 2007

imported post

and the right to Christianity

So much ignorance...it kinda kills the rest of your argument.

imperialism2024 · Nov 3, 2007

imported post

Heartless_Conservative wrote:

and the right to Christianity

Click to expand...

So much ignorance...it kinda kills the rest of your argument.

I believe in freedom... not a theocracy masquerading under the guise of "freedom". I reject the current notion among most gun enthusiasts (and Republicans/conservatives) that freedom in America only applies to issues where mainstream Christianity allows for it. The almost non-existance of Americans' rights to life, liberty, and property are a product of both Republicans and Democrats, both "good Christians" and "godless atheists". The only difference is that a secular government respects rights where a religiously-affiliated government tramples them.

Heartless_Conservative · Nov 4, 2007

imported post

Someone hasn't been paying attention to anything thats happend in America since the late 60's...ya, Christian theocracy...we'll have that right after the dirty zionist jooooooos are overturned!

Seriously? Can you not see the irony in your words?

WhiteFeather · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

America was formed by Christians and Catholics, Quakers and Protistans. Most of the religions that formed America were based off a faith that Jesus was a savior and a lord all rolled into one. Later on America even invented its own religion. But my pointis that America was founded by Christ-ians and so secular law came from what they felt was moral and just. Most men relize they are flawed and look to a higher power for guidence. Luckily for us they deemed it a hypocrisy to escape religious control only to reinstate that which they fled. So gradually more and more religions pilled onto the American plate. Was it always they case that religous freedom was expressed? Absolotly not. Some places were more intolorant than others and thankfully we have moved past some of that and have taken on a role of more acceptance when it comes to religion. Are we perfect? No but I think we are going in the right direction. However regardles of such thought America was founded on Christian principals and those principals are going to govern this country for a long time. Just because I feel many of the Christian principals are control of man via fear does not mean that I berate that thought at every turn. If you are happy in your beliefs than good for you! I agree with imperialism2024that there is a lot oppression because of the Christian faith. However I feel that leading by example goes farther than any other form of protest.

Back on topic I again agree with imperialism2024 that we haveno property rights in America. If you don't pay your taxes you don't have your property. And at any moment for any reason it can be taken from you. I whole heartedly agree that we should have property rights and that property rights should overide any other right. For the simple fact that I feel I have the right to be a Jackass. :what:

Wynder · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

If you don't pay your taxes you don't have your property. And at any moment for any reason it can be taken from you.

You own the structure and basically what amounts to the topsoil of your property -- you have property rights, regardless of when taxes come into play, you still have property rights for as long as you hold the deed to that land.

Texas is the only state in which you may hold allodial title of a piece of property -- you wholy own the structures and the land beneath it clear and free, no payment of taxes.

But you've said it yourself... in the inverse, as long as you pay your taxes (assuming we don't hold allodial title and live in Texas) you have your property. Therefore, you have property rights.

Where do your rights begin and mine end?

Regular Member

State Researcher

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Researcher

State Researcher

State Researcher

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Researcher

State Researcher

State Researcher

State Researcher

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher