User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 14 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 134

Thread: Property Rights and Racial Discrimination

  1. #1
    Points: 222,626, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 32.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranYour first Group
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    468804
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67,628
    Points
    222,626
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,219
    Thanked 41,536x in 26,005 Posts
    Mentioned
    1169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Property Rights and Racial Discrimination

    The other thread where we were discussing this issue was shut down because one poster couldn't handle the direction said thread was heading in. The fact that several other posters were having a discussion didn't seem to matter.

    So, let's continue that discussion here.

    What rights, if any, does a property owner have to discriminate in the utilization of their property?
    Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
    --John Adams

  2. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 297,690, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    416526
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    117,863
    Points
    297,690
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,299
    Thanked 53,471x in 36,446 Posts
    Mentioned
    1102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Just a reminder: he's not asking you to recite the law. He's asking what justifies it morally.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  3. #3
    Points: 222,626, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 32.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranYour first Group
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    468804
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67,628
    Points
    222,626
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,219
    Thanked 41,536x in 26,005 Posts
    Mentioned
    1169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I used an analogy of a woman's body to try and make a point.

    Obviously, a person's body and material possessions like a cellphone are not assigned the same level of subjective importance. Nevertheless, they are both forms of private property, and therefore should be protected from non-consensual access and utilization.
    Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
    --John Adams

  4. #4
    Points: 222,626, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 32.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranYour first Group
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    468804
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67,628
    Points
    222,626
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,219
    Thanked 41,536x in 26,005 Posts
    Mentioned
    1169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    Just a reminder: he's not asking you to recite the law. He's asking what justifies it morally.
    Morally, intellectually, heck, even a utilitarian argument will suffice. Anything is better than "it's the law, derp"....
    Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
    --John Adams

  5. #5
    Points: 665,260, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,549
    Points
    665,260
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    ...What rights, if any, does a property owner have to discriminate in the utilization of their property?

    Full rights to do whatsoever with his or her property--be it body, cell phone, land, business, etc, so long as in doing so no coercive harm is done. Society may deem his reputation immoral, but the state ought not have any power to regulate this.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  6. #6
    Points: 222,626, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 32.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranYour first Group
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    468804
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67,628
    Points
    222,626
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,219
    Thanked 41,536x in 26,005 Posts
    Mentioned
    1169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Full rights to do whatsoever with his or her property--be it body, cell phone, land, business, etc, so long as in doing so no coercive harm is done. Society may deem his reputation immoral, but the state ought not have any power to regulate this.
    You racist!
    Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
    --John Adams

  7. #7
    Points: 36,417, Level: 46
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 533
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Archer0915's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    56214
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7,009
    Points
    36,417
    Level
    46
    Thanks Given
    3,252
    Thanked 2,215x in 1,682 Posts
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    The other thread where we were discussing this issue was shut down because one poster couldn't handle the direction said thread was heading in. The fact that several other posters were having a discussion didn't seem to matter.

    So, let's continue that discussion here.

    What rights, if any, does a property owner have to discriminate in the utilization of their property?
    Constitutionally? They should have total control. Legally? Perhaps not so much unless it is approved discrimination.

    I mean no shirt, no shoes, no service... Loud mouths getting kicked out...

    Also one can make things on heterosexual white males, legally.

  8. #8
    Points: 92,612, Level: 74
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 2,138
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Common Sense's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    931196
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    41,841
    Points
    92,612
    Level
    74
    Thanks Given
    14,236
    Thanked 16,117x in 11,350 Posts
    Mentioned
    544 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think I've stated my case thoroughly but I'll reiterate.

    Business owners, specifically public accommodations such as retail stores, restaurants, theaters and hotels, should not be able to discriminate on the basis of things like race, religion etc... That desire is reflected by the vast majority of people and therefore has been encoded into law. Specifically under the Civil Rights Act.

    But I guess the question really was "What rights, if any, does a property owner have to discriminate in the utilization of their property?".

    If it's simply private property and not a public accommodation, people have the right to refuse utilization of their property to anyone for any reason.

    As far as public accommodation goes, business owners still have the right to discriminate based on lots of criteria. They can refuse service based on a dress code, or even certain behavior.

  9. #9
    Points: 665,260, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,549
    Points
    665,260
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    You racist!
    Too old to run in a race.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  10. #10
    Points: 665,260, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,549
    Points
    665,260
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Sense View Post
    I think I've stated my case thoroughly but I'll reiterate.

    Business owners, specifically public accommodations such as retail stores, restaurants, theaters and hotels, should not be able to discriminate on the basis of things like race, religion etc... That desire is reflected by the vast majority of people and therefore has been encoded into law. Specifically under the Civil Rights Act.

    But I guess the question really was "What rights, if any, does a property owner have to discriminate in the utilization of their property?".

    If it's simply private property and not a public accommodation, people have the right to refuse utilization of their property to anyone for any reason.

    As far as public accommodation goes, business owners still have the right to discriminate based on lots of criteria. They can refuse service based on a dress code, or even certain behavior.


    This public argument that keeps arising is fallaciously based on an ambiguity. The meaning of 'public' in "public office" or "public park" doesn't have the same meaning as it does in "public business" or a business "open to the public." A public office or park is part of the community managed by the state. I can understand posited law regulating their use. But a public business is owned by an individual or group as a private asset. Here only reputation should rule.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts