Results 1 to 30 of 44

Thread: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,958

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    Through a combination of being familiar with the likes of John Locke and other natural rights theorists in my studies, and recent discussions here which have touched on the topic of property rights, I have came to wonder whether or not anti-discrimination laws are legitimate.

    As Locke said, the most basic rights are those of "life, liberty, and property", and these are unalienable, and enshrined as such in the US Constitution. To quote from a site Lemur linked to on another thread, "A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals."

    Surely anti-discrimination laws such as the Race Relations Act 1976 stamp all over the fundemantal right to the ownership and use of property? If a businessman owns a premesis, who is the government to tell him who he must let work on it?

    Maybe this is another topic I'm coming on to, but if the anti-discrimination laws are themselves against the most fundamental laws of the land (those by constitution, whether written or unwritten, since both US and UK constitutions are based on these fundamental rights), surely citizens have no obligation to obey them?

    Maybe I am too influenced by the individualistic theory of resistance proposed by George Buchanan in 'de Juri Regni apud Scotos'. While people may criticise this saying it means everyone taking the laws into their own hands and could cause anarchy, I find it to be sound as a political theory.

    Indeed, these ideas are the very ones on which the UK political tradition is based. To quote another figure, Francis Hutcheson wrote "For wherever any Invasion is made upon unalienable Rights, there must arise either a perfect, or external Right to Resistance" (I conceded I got that quote from wikipedia).

    Say for example a white-supremacist refuses to serve a black guy in his shop. Even if the courts would try to punish him, IMO he is no longer bound to recognise those courts, since they are themselves trying to enforce laws which take away his property rights. And in doing so, they act illegaly, and renounce themselves of all legal authority.

    Thoughts?

    PS - I am not racist. (wish we had the 'surprise' smiley here)

    I just support peoples' right to be racist, so long as they don't start trampling on others rights because of it.
    i have a similar view when it comes to things like burkas.

    progressives ties themselves in knots trying to justify the anti-discrimination laws that are 'demanded' by the multitude of victim groups whose interests they claim to represent, but then find themselves in a sticky position with things like burkas which represent a problem for the liberal paradise they 'think' they're building.

    the answer; ban the burka.

    wrong.

    ditch the anti-discrimination laws, and leave to people to act in their own interests:
    > Want a bank-loan; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"
    > Want a job; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"
    > Want a date; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"
    > Want a favour; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"

    Take part in our society, or ostracise yourself from it, understand the consequence of your own actions. that doesn't mean you have to have tea and crumpets at elevensies, or turn up at the cricket pitch on sunday afternoon, but walking around like a ninja and expecting to be treated like a normal human being is rank stupidity. whatever the law says I think you are a idiot!
    Last edited by Furunculus; 08-12-2010 at 09:29.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  2. #2
    Devout worshipper of Bilious Member miotas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,035

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    i have a similar view when it comes to things like burkas.

    progressives ties themselves in knots trying to justify the anti-discrimination laws that are 'demanded' by the multitude of victim groups whose interests they claim to represent, but then find themselves in a sticky position with things like burkas which represent a problem for the liberal paradise they 'think' they're building.

    the answer; ban the burka.

    wrong.

    ditch the anti-discrimination laws, and leave to people to act in their own interests:
    > Want a bank-loan; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"
    > Want a job; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"
    > Want a date; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"
    > Want a favour; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"

    Take part in our society, or ostracise yourself from it, understand the consequence of your own actions. that doesn't mean you have to have tea and crumpets at elevensies, or turn up at the cricket pitch on sunday afternoon, but walking around like a ninja and expecting to be treated like a normal human being is rank stupidity. whatever the law says I think you are a idiot!


    I don't see what burkas have to with this debate at all. Thinking someone looks stupid in their clothes or being unable to provide someone with a certain service because they won't prove their identity has nothing to do with racial discrimination.

    - Four Horsemen of the Presence

  3. #3
    Amphibious Trebuchet Salesman Member Whacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    in ur city killin ur militias
    Posts
    2,934

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    I'm a bit confused here, somebody please help me out. I have always been of the understanding that anti-discrimination laws apply to employment only. They do not apply to choosing a customer base. Look at the women's health clubs for example, like Curves. They simply do not and will not accept male customers for a number of reasons, ranging from it can make the other female patrons uncomfortable, to simply not having the facilities to support males.

    "Justice is the firm and continuous desire to render to everyone
    that which is his due."
    - Justinian I

  4. #4
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,958

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    Quote Originally Posted by miotas View Post

    I don't see what burkas have to with this debate at all.

    Thinking someone looks stupid in their clothes or being unable to provide someone with a certain service because they won't prove their identity has nothing to do with racial discrimination.
    yes it does.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  5. #5
    Devout worshipper of Bilious Member miotas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,035

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    yes it does.
    If I try to get a service that requires me to prove my ID but I wont remove my motorbike helmet and they can't serve me, that isn't discrimination. If I walk downtown in a chicken suit and people laugh at me because I look stupid, that isn't discrimination. My home town was very much a beach town, and seeing someone in a suit was quite rare, would it be discrimination if I were to stare and openly discuss with my mates why he's wearing a suit?

    Clothing choices have nothing to do with discrimination. I fear that this may derail the thread, so if you want to talk about this any more then it will have to be somewhere else.


    Quote Originally Posted by Whacker View Post
    I'm a bit confused here, somebody please help me out. I have always been of the understanding that anti-discrimination laws apply to employment only. They do not apply to choosing a customer base. Look at the women's health clubs for example, like Curves. They simply do not and will not accept male customers for a number of reasons, ranging from it can make the other female patrons uncomfortable, to simply not having the facilities to support males.
    If you don't have the facilities to support a certain group then that is fine. If however, a Greengrocer for example were to refuse to serve women or black people or christians or any other group, then that would be discrimination as they can obviously eat fruit and veggies.
    Last edited by miotas; 08-12-2010 at 11:33. Reason: can't spell helmet

    - Four Horsemen of the Presence

  6. #6
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,690
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    Yet provision of facilities is required in most cases - e.g. Disabled access, toilets for both genders etc etc.

    In most other cases it would be up to the patrons to decide whether the facilities are adequate not. A butcher sells his wares to all, it is up to the customer to decide whether it is suitable - not for the butcher to state otherwise.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  7. #7
    Amphibious Trebuchet Salesman Member Whacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    in ur city killin ur militias
    Posts
    2,934

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    Quote Originally Posted by miotas View Post
    [spoil]If you don't have the facilities to support a certain group then that is fine. If however, a Greengrocer for example were to refuse to serve women or black people or christians or any other group, then that would be discrimination as they can obviously eat fruit and veggies.
    Let me clarify a bit. I'm asking for someone to quote me a specific law and/or case study that clearly states a private business owner may not discriminate as to whom they can choose to do business with.

    "Justice is the firm and continuous desire to render to everyone
    that which is his due."
    - Justinian I

  8. #8
    Devout worshipper of Bilious Member miotas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,035

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    Yet provision of facilities is required in most cases - e.g. Disabled access, toilets for both genders etc etc.

    In most other cases it would be up to the patrons to decide whether the facilities are adequate not. A butcher sells his wares to all, it is up to the customer to decide whether it is suitable - not for the butcher to state otherwise.

    Disabled access ect. is to do with the building itself, not the product they're selling, but there is actually nothing to stop a person from buying a product that is completely useless to them. Hmmm, I've never actually heard of these women's only gyms, they do actually sound like discrimination. I'm gonna have a look see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whacker View Post
    Let me clarify a bit. I'm asking for someone to quote me a specific law and/or case study that clearly states a private business owner may not discriminate as to whom they can choose to do business with.
    Ah, well someone else will have to help with that, I could find the relevant acts in Australia, but not the US unfortunately.


    EDIT
    On a closer look, Curves provides facilities that are tailored to women, and would have little benefit to men. If however, for some odd reason a man did want to join, then it would be discrimination to refuse just because he's a man.
    Last edited by miotas; 08-12-2010 at 12:34.

    - Four Horsemen of the Presence

  9. #9
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,690
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    Quote Originally Posted by miotas View Post
    On a closer look, Curves provides facilities that are tailored to women, and would have little benefit to men. If however, for some odd reason a man did want to join, then it would be discrimination to refuse just because he's a man.
    A gym full of women is a reason in itself to join.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  10. #10
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,958

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    Quote Originally Posted by miotas View Post

    If I try to get a service that requires me to prove my ID but I wont remove my motorbike helmet and they can't serve me, that isn't discrimination. If I walk downtown in a chicken suit and people laugh at me because I look stupid, that isn't discrimination. My home town was very much a beach town, and seeing someone in a suit was quite rare, would it be discrimination if I were to stare and openly discuss with my mates why he's wearing a suit?

    Clothing choices have nothing to do with discrimination. I fear that this may derail the thread, so if you want to talk about this any more then it will have to be somewhere else.[/spoil]



    If you don't have the facilities to support a certain group then that is fine. If however, a Greengrocer for example were to refuse to serve women or black people or christians or any other group, then that would be discrimination as they can obviously eat fruit and veggies.
    Yes it is, the discussion is wider than merely race because the OP defined the topic more broadly:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyf
    Maybe this is another topic I'm coming on to, but if the anti-discrimination laws are themselves against the most fundamental laws of the land (those by constitution, whether written or unwritten, since both US and UK constitutions are based on these fundamental rights), surely citizens have no obligation to obey them?
    anti-discrimination employment laws may well be used against you if you binned a job application on learning that the applicant worse a burqa, regardless of whether the job was for a back-office or public-facing position.

    i merely used this relevant example as a device to illustrate the ridiculousness of legislating against a piece of clothing, an act deemed necessary in some european countries because the shear quantity of anti-discriminatory legislation prevents society from dealing with atypical behaviour in any other way.

    i declare it relevant, bite me.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  11. #11

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    i have a similar view when it comes to things like burkas.

    progressives ties themselves in knots trying to justify the anti-discrimination laws that are 'demanded' by the multitude of victim groups whose interests they claim to represent, but then find themselves in a sticky position with things like burkas which represent a problem for the liberal paradise they 'think' they're building.

    the answer; ban the burka.

    wrong.

    ditch the anti-discrimination laws, and leave to people to act in their own interests:
    > Want a bank-loan; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"
    > Want a job; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"
    > Want a date; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"
    > Want a favour; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"

    Take part in our society, or ostracise yourself from it, understand the consequence of your own actions. that doesn't mean you have to have tea and crumpets at elevensies, or turn up at the cricket pitch on sunday afternoon, but walking around like a ninja and expecting to be treated like a normal human being is rank stupidity. whatever the law says I think you are a idiot!
    I'm a progressive and I don't feel myself in a sticky position when it comes to burkas. I uphold the freedom of religion right we all have and let women wear the burkas. I want to make progress towards more liberty and more freedom and I don't see how banning religious clothing is making progress in anyway.

    Your last paragraph has me divided. I can fully understand European nations with thousands of years of unique culture to want to preserve such culture, but I have always seen American culture (as an American myself) to be a never ending mix of everyone else's cultures, overtime the mixture has changed from European to a Euro, African, Latin American, Asian combination in varying percentages and now there is just a new ingredient (Middle Eastern) being added, which will have pluses and minues just as every other culture has brought (damn Catholic Irish!).

    As for the actual topic in this thread, my way of thinking is that history has shown and we ourselves in the present have acknowledged that no right is absolute or utterly available at all given times. The rights we all enjoy have been for hundreds of years subjected and have bent to the publics interest when it calls for it in order to prevent social self destruction. Americans love to be individuals with rights inherent that cannot be broken upon by the will of others, but to me that just seems like a bit of hyperbole or at least has been since the beginning of the twentieth century.

    I want property rights to be absolute and I would love freedom of speech to be absolute (especially during times of war), but people use them irresponsibly in a way that restricts other people's freedoms. Either way someone's freedom is being restricted (the bigot or the discriminated) so I have to look at which would be more beneficial to us all having the bigot not be able to discriminate against blacks, or letting people be discriminated against to protect property rights. Well, I have to say I much rather enjoy having all races, genders and sexual orientations buy what they want to buy where they want to buy it, because that will at least generate additional commerce then disallowing blacks etc... Then with additional money coming in, I could lower taxes on property owners to compensate them for restricting their bigotry (cue "buying away our freedoms" hyperbole). That's just my thought process on the whole matter.


  12. #12
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    Unless you are alone on a desert island, you are part of some part of society/community. The communities interests are ultimately more important than your own. So with everyone working towards the community, everyone benefits.

    While in modern times, technology has expanded the communities to the n-th degree, leading to depersonalisation on the mass scale, which in itself, causes problems.

    In order to cope with this, rights have to be re-invented in a structural framework which all benefit from.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  13. #13

    Default Re: Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    Unless you are alone on a desert island, you are part of some part of society/community. The communities interests are ultimately more important than your own. So with everyone working towards the community, everyone benefits.

    While in modern times, technology has expanded the communities to the n-th degree, leading to depersonalisation on the mass scale, which in itself, causes problems.

    In order to cope with this, rights have to be re-invented in a structural framework which all benefit from.
    The problem is though, who/how re-invents the rights. It's easier to protect rights when they are considered absolute then if we all agree that rights are simply something we all made up to make our lives better, that could lead to problems (when we are in war we must give up our right to criticize the government since we all know that the community will benefit more from a solid adherence to the war effort then if we let people undermine us from within and have those Japs/Germans/Soviets destroy us).


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO