Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
Where do you get the right to tell others how they can make a living?
I don't have that right. However, the Supreme Court has said that the Congress has that right.
If you would be so kind as to a) specify that supreme court ruling, and b) identify an online resource where I can obtain the text of that decision, so that I can 1) confirm or deny your allegation, and 2) debate your position intelligently, I would greatly appreciate it.
I am not allowed to place toxic waste, or noise, where it can affect others; I can ingest toxins privately and listen to whatever music I like so long as you don't detect it in your backyard.
Well, racism is hiring decisions is something that is detected in other people's backyards. That's why its illegal.
What if I run a business out of my house? What if I don't need employees (such that I could affort to hire a couple of people, or nobody at all)? If I hire someone who is white because I don't want to hire someone is black, then it is not a loss that is felt within the black community, since I don't *need* to hire anybody in the first place.
In a fantasy world, it is mutually consensual. It the real world, it is seldom mutual.
You prefer a shotgun or otherwise arranged marriage?
I prefer a level playing field.
The above phrase is something that I hear a lot, and it deeply disturbs me. Regulation is allways seen as the arm of fairness, when the above phrase is mentioned. I am not allowed to choose to hire someone based on skin color, and yet the country is riddled by "affirmative" action programs -- which, in the short and brutal version of the description of "AA" is just a system of RACE-BASED PREFRENCES. I find it very interesting that liberal activists in California, who rabidly insist that racism is wrong, that we must have racial dialogues, that we should all "just get allong," used the court system to fight Proposition 209, which ends affirmative action in that state. The people voted their will, and the activists took to the courts to override the people's will -- in effect, saying that the California voting public is just a bunch of idiots. I don't like someone telling me that I don't know better. When I like is as little government influence in my life as humanly possible, be it in my choice of breakfast cereal, or employees.
Private behavior is private behavior, and trade is a private behavior.
Not in this country. If you don't believe me, check out Article I, Section 8 for one explicit example.
I read Article I, Section 8. I shall quote the relevent portion that relate to this discussion: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ... " Now, then. Notice the eighth word -- "amung." As I understand it, this means that the Fed can regulate INTERstate commerce, not INTRAstate commerce. This is why (again, as I understand it) the Fed will inspect meat crossing state lines, but not meat that is moved around within a state. It is for this reason that not all meat is inspected by the Fed. If anybody has refrences to texts that prove me wrong, bring them forward so that I can refine my argument. :) So, back to my home business. Let's say I build computers and sell them around the state. Since I'm not transporting my product from one state to another, the Fed can't constitutionally regulate how I do business.
With freedom comes responsibility. Decency is one of them.
This is ALLWAYS the case. You earn freedom through being a responsible adult. When you don't infringe on the rights of others, the government has no grounds under which to infringe on yours (through punishment or direct order).
But obligate decency at gunpoint is not worth it.
It's called civilization. You should try it some time.
No, no, no. To obligate "decency" at gunpoint is definitely NOT anything but facicism (sp?). I remember a time when people were obligated to do the "decent" thing and worship God and Jesus Christ -- and, as the bumper sticker says, "The last time religion and politics were mixed, someone got burned." Decency is a very fuzzy word. After all, the KKK says that white people are the only decent people. The KKK is in the minority. To use your own words: "No majority group has a right to discriminate against a minority." By your own words, the KKK should be allowed to discriminate against blacks when they hire if they want to, since they are in the minority when compared (by numbers) to all of the groups they think are lesser than those of white skin. After all -- does skin color constitute the only minority? Not according to the definition of the word. Best wishes and fresh-roasted peanut taste, The Sheriff. -- ***<REPLY TO: sheriff@speakeasy.org>*** --- As kinky as it sounds, finger me to see my PGP key and confirm the signature attached to this message. --- Any and all SPAM will be met with immediate prosecutory efforts. Solicitations are NOT welcome here! --- ----BEGIN INFLAMATORY BLOCK---- Version: 160 (IQ) Comments: Definitely one of their greatest misses. Reporter: "Do you know what Public Enemy is?" --- Citizen: "Public enemy?" [long pause] "Probably somebody in office." -----END INFLAMATORY BLOCK-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 5:02 PM -0800 12/24/97, Steve Schear wrote:
If you would be so kind as to a) specify that supreme court ruling, and b) identify an online resource where I can obtain the text of that decision, so that I can 1) confirm or deny your allegation, and 2) debate your position intelligently, I would greatly appreciate it.
It has to do with the application of laws, especially Federal, to corporations. Recall that Corporations are legal fictions and, unlike individuals, are not constitutionally vested with inaliable rights. They have been affirmed some rights, including free speech but the SC, but generally with more limitations.
Okay, I'll avoid that since I have never read a scrap of corporational law.
What if I run a business out of my house? What if I don't need employees (such that I could affort to hire a couple of people, or nobody at all)? If I hire someone who is white because I don't want to hire someone is black, then it is not a loss that is felt within the black community, since I don't *need* to hire anybody in the first place.
Use of your property, as long as its private, were vested with many
constitutional rights (many of which now been eroded by decades of SC 'interpretation'). However, once you operate a business upon a property (evidenced by the issuance of a business license) it becomes a 'public convenience' which can (and often is) heavily regulated and restricted.
So, operate w/o a business license and incorporation and keep your rights but risk prosection for tax evasion, or license your business and lose many of those consititional protections you covet. Catch-22.
Just out fo curiosity -- if I were to take my taxes out like I were operating a business out of my house without declaring I am as such, and then not take the "excess" tax money back as a return, would the Fed have any grounds for suit of fraud, since I had paid all the taxes of a business properly? What I'm wondering is if the fraud charge would be because I haden't paid the proper taxes or not.
I find it very interesting that liberal activists in California, who rabidly insist that racism is wrong, that we must have racial dialogues, that we should all "just get allong," used the court system to fight Proposition 209, which ends affirmative action in that state. The people voted their will, and the activists took to the courts to override the people's will -- in effect, saying that the California voting public is just a bunch of idiots.
They simply showed their true 'liberal' idiological colors. What they really seek isn't guarantees of equal opportunity but equal outcomes under law, what Robert Bork calls Radical Egalitarianism in his recent book, "Slouching Towards Gamorah."
I haven't seen or read the book. However, it would seem to me that equal opertunity and equal outcome aren't one and the same. While you are making it possible for folks who wouldn't normally hit the middle income road to do so, you are then also restraining the brighter bulbs from taking off like NASA rockets (and the analogy is correct, since being a genius doesn't guarantee success). Best wishes and fresh-roasted peanut taste, The Sheriff. -- ***<REPLY TO: sheriff@speakeasy.org>*** - --- As kinky as it sounds, finger me to see my PGP key and confirm the signature attached to this message. - --- Any and all SPAM will be met with immediate prosecutory efforts. Solicitations are NOT welcome here! - --- ----BEGIN INFLAMATORY BLOCK---- Version: 160 (IQ) Comments: Definitely one of their greatest misses. Reporter: "Do you know what Public Enemy is?" - --- Citizen: "Public enemy?" [long pause] "Probably somebody in office." -----END INFLAMATORY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNKXNjABMw4+NR29ZAQGO8wf7Bic4Y5v74dP4uCowXyqT68BkHlhU1/+p hs4rD7w8D27TJkIep9kBLCZfvPo0i3cGqMN6NluAHJ4auf+TjezVCe4cheTXyZCJ K/aoyZHgrmV1vH/wHHvbODc8Aq5kVzrcCAnfPF9T4j/2gS3pbMp+VALlix/Cp53u TRpqLNCTlFnwiZVO8h82hF/gnNiNxmHQ7UoPG1WJYXUSiDTmRjEhM0RnmDdThaEh W1Yh0O1Xpl6F6B13ZNTby3PTDh2FzllscFmPtWtxl4iCWeHERHL6f4Jpb/9uVrgB N7eT1veC7fkSMFJaKGNT73GEBzxz5gphjmVLPsr8QKdVjVfS20eyRw== =B4z0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (1)
-
The Sheriff