#winning or #losing?

[CowboyJD]

Is your opinion the same as that outlined in the article? Do you believe that the Civil Rights Act was a violation of your private property rights?

Yes, David, I agree that Title II & Title VII are a violation of private property rights.

I kind of do too....at least an infringement on them.

At the same time, I think it was legally and morally justifiable and needed.

Thus the difference between pragmatism and idealism.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I kind of do too....at least an infringement on them.

At the same time, I think it was legally and morally justifiable and needed.

Thus the difference between pragmatism and idealism.

Interesting comment. Care to explain how violating an individual's rights are morally justified?

 

[CowboyJD]

Interesting comment. Care to explain how violating an individual's rights are morally justified?

No...not really.

 

[davidallen]

David, I respect you and our opinions aren't usually excessively different, but for fun, I'm going to counter argue this point:

LGBT Rights - Agreed, however, I'd argue that they've overstepped their bounds. Guys who believe they are women don't belong in Women's athletics. Prescribing hormone blockers to pre-teen kids so they don't develop their natural adult organs should be child abuse and not a "civil rights" issue.

Environmental Improvements - Agree although again, this shift is as much due to the explosion of Natural gas usage as any legislation. In fact, if we were to have listened to our "green energy" & "Save the world" ecologists who rail against Natural gas usage and waited until even cleaner technologies were available, we'd not seen a fraction of our recent savings.

Access to Education - To whom and at what cost? Yes, we now provide educational opportunity to every individual regardless of citizenship, however, in turn have made our inner city schools require Spanish speaking teachers and have dropped from one of the highest rated G20 education systems to one of the worst G20 education systems. In addition, we've accelarated college expenses at 2-4 times the annual inflation rate and have saddled Americans with a new $1T in school debt (that's non-dischargable). Finally, you've created a system where we've promoted college education to such an extent that the average and below average graduates can't find jobs that utilize their degrees (or even require them) as we've out-educated large segments of the job market.

Deconstruction of Communism in China - Wholeheartedly agree. Open trade with China (wasn't this initiated by Nixon?) has slowly done what it was hoped to do. China's people live a significantly improved life with significantly improved freedoms. Its still Communist. But its a much softer communist.

Reduction of overall violence in American Society - I think this is statistically correct, although I'd argue that its shifting away from the prior trends. I'd also note that we as a society have significantly increased our tolerance for violence. We don't even talk about gang shootings any more. We are completely numb to the murders that are shown nearly daily on the local news. We have factions of society that celebrate rioting in the streets. I saw last week (or two) when the St. Louis police officer was acquited, that business were boarding up their windows (like a hurricane was coming) to minimize the damage that the 'peaceful' protesters would cause. I'd also note the general acceptance of groups like Antifa who regularly condone violence against those whose opinions aren't aligned to their own.

Good stuff here....

LGBT - basic rights are not the same IMO as the two issues you quote. Those are certainly open for discussion and I likely side with you on both. I am just proud of the progress made to treat people with basic dignity and insure legal and economic equality.

Enviro - Natural Gas, technological innovation, social trends -- they all add up to much of what we have seen. As a kid I can remember not being able to see the mountains from the Riverside. Last time I was down that way I was stunned by the beautiful views. Decry all you want the Environmental Wackos - but they get credit for putting pressure on the politicians, education kids on ecology, and generally making our society more environmentally aware. John Denver and Bill Nye - good work gentlemen.

Education - The real progress here IMO is tearing down the structural barriers that kept many from underserved populations from accessing the tools for progress. Say what you want about student debt, at least those individuals had access to education.

China - Not Communist - not the definition we all grew up with at least. Somewhere between State Capitalism and Socialism.

Violence - The desensitization statement doesn't line up well against the claims of "snowflake" that seem to resonate from the right anytime someone objects to anything they find offensive. I think Black Lives Matter, the NFL Protest, etc are a reaction to violence in our society - albeit state sanctioned (per their definition) violence.

Good dialog... thanks!

 

[davidallen]

Interesting comment. Care to explain how violating an individual's rights are morally justified?

When individual rights are in conflict what do you recommend the default mediation be? From your question are you asserting that individual rights are never in conflict?

 

[davidallen]

I kind of do too....at least an infringement on them.

At the same time, I think it was legally and morally justifiable and needed.

Thus the difference between pragmatism and idealism.

Why you steal my thunder... I was getting there. Albeit slowly...

 

[Ponca Dan]

When individual rights are in conflict what do you recommend the default mediation be? From your question are you asserting that individual rights are never in conflict?

First we need to agree on what a right is. Then, where does it come from? Then, who enjoys rights.

I would say a right is a condition of existence required by mans' nature to assure his survival. The three fundamental rights are life, liberty and property. I would argue that rights are endemic to the individual, not to groups. I would argue that when the rights of the individual are protected, then the rights of everyone are protected. I do not see how rights can come into conflict with each other.

Let's look at property rights, the right/ability to privately own property. I assert that ownership of property is defined by who gets to determine what is to be done with said property. If the government imposes its will on an owner such that the owner has to dispose of the property as the government demands, then in reality it is the government that owns the property. When the government forces bigots to share their property with those whom the bigots despise, then the bigot doesn't own the property, the government does. The bigot's right to property has been denied. One of the three fundamental rights has been violated by government decree. Now, apparently you think that is morally justified, that bigots should have their rights violated. They're hateful bigots, they have it coming. I don't disagree that bigots are hateful. But I argue they have the same rights as non-bigots. When you justify denying rights to one individual or group you climb onto a slippery slope from which it is almost impossible to escape. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, at least those two sections, violated property rights, pure and simple. Something was gained, but something else was lost.

 

[davidallen]

First we need to agree on what a right is. Then, where does it come from? Then, who enjoys rights.

I would say a right is a condition of existence required by mans' nature to assure his survival. The three fundamental rights are life, liberty and property. I would argue that rights are endemic to the individual, not to groups. I would argue that when the rights of the individual are protected, then the rights of everyone are protected. I do not see how rights can come into conflict with each other.

Let's look at property rights, the right/ability to privately own property. I assert that ownership of property is defined by who gets to determine what is to be done with said property. If the government imposes its will on an owner such that the owner has to dispose of the property as the government demands, then in reality it is the government that owns the property. When the government forces bigots to share their property with those whom the bigots despise, then the bigot doesn't own the property, the government does. The bigot's right to property has been denied. One of the three fundamental rights has been violated by government decree. Now, apparently you think that is morally justified, that bigots should have their rights violated. They're hateful bigots, they have it coming. I don't disagree that bigots are hateful. But I argue they have the same rights as non-bigots. When you justify denying rights to one individual or group you climb onto a slippery slope from which it is almost impossible to escape. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, at least those two sections, violated property rights, pure and simple. Something was gained, but something else was lost.

You did not address the question of conflict of rights... So you don't see any conflict of rights when the property say of a community is denied for use by a subset of that community?

 

[Ponca Dan]

You did not address the question of conflict of rights... So you don't see any conflict of rights when the property say of a community is denied for use by a subset of that community?

Yes, I did address your concern re a conflict of rights, I said rights of individuals cannot conflict with each other. The '64 Civil Rights Act was appropriate to the extent that it applied to "community" property. It stepped over the line when it insisted on being directed at "private" property. It was not correcting a conflict of rights, it was abrogating the rights of all private property owners. It was a huge power grab by the government, and in many ways set the stage for government interference in our lives (banning light bulbs, regulating how much water our toilets may flush, who gets to use whose bathroom, etc).

 

[davidallen]

...I said rights of individuals cannot conflict with each other....

Sorry, are you saying they can not/do not? Driving while intoxicated - your right to use your property how you want, where you want, in whatever state you want conflicts with my expectation of safety. While some might say the consequences are such that no rational person would choose to drive drunk, we have plenty of contrary evidence. How is this not a conflicting set of rights?

Similarly, the Civil Rights Act addressed a conflict of rights between a minority denied basic accommodations afforded to the majority - ie segregation.

I get you don't like the idea of society putting limits on your use of property, but to the extent that usage conflicts with the greater good it seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[aix_xpert]

Good stuff here....

Enviro - Natural Gas, technological innovation, social trends -- they all add up to much of what we have seen. As a kid I can remember not being able to see the mountains from the Riverside. Last time I was down that way I was stunned by the beautiful views. Decry all you want the Environmental Wackos - but they get credit for putting pressure on the politicians, education kids on ecology, and generally making our society more environmentally aware. John Denver and Bill Nye - good work gentlemen.

Good dialog... thanks!

I would give the "Environmental Wackos" more credit if they weren't constantly arguing against those technologies and solutions that have lead to the advancements achieved thus far. They want Wind power as long as its NIMBA. Same with nuclear. They fight against Natural Gas solutions even though the vast majority of the environmental benefits have been driven by the conversion of our national power grid from coal to natural gas. I won't give excessive credit to those who fight good & reasonable solutions in order for pie-in-the-sky perfect solutions.

 

[davidallen]

I would give the "Environmental Wackos" more credit if they weren't constantly arguing against those technologies and solutions that have lead to the advancements achieved thus far. They want Wind power as long as its NIMBA. Same with nuclear. They fight against Natural Gas solutions even though the vast majority of the environmental benefits have been driven by the conversion of our national power grid from coal to natural gas. I won't give excessive credit to those who fight good & reasonable solutions in order for pie-in-the-sky perfect solutions.

Generally agree - especially the NIMBA aspect...

 

[Ponca Dan]

Sorry, are you saying they can not/do not? Driving while intoxicated - your right to use your property how you want, where you want, in whatever state you want conflicts with my expectation of safety. While some might say the consequences are such that no rational person would choose to drive drunk, we have plenty of contrary evidence. How is this not a conflicting set of rights?

Similarly, the Civil Rights Act addressed a conflict of rights between a minority denied basic accommodations afforded to the majority - ie segregation.

I get you don't like the idea of society putting limits on your use of property, but to the extent that usage conflicts with the greater good it seems perfectly reasonable.

I'm having a bit of trouble deciphering your first paragraph. My driving intoxicated is a violation of your rights? Which right am I violating? I would argue that my driving intoxicated is not violating any of your rights. Now when I run a red light and crash into your car, then I am violating your rights. But that would be the case even if I were stone cold sober.

You maintain the Civil Rights Act addressed a "conflict" of rights as it pertains to segregation. When it came to "community" property, as you put it, the act was properly addressing rights. Public schools, public parks, public swimming pools, public libraries, etc. should never have been segregated in the first place. That segregation was practiced and protected by local/state government, and enforced by the police, the armed forces of those governments. It was a despicable time in our history. However, private property is a different matter altogether. There is not a conflict of rights when it comes to private property. A person's desire does not make it a right. My wanting to rent an apartment from you does not give me the authority to use the police power of the state to make you rent to me. I have no right to insinuate myself onto your property against your will. If I do use the police power of the state to force you to rent your apartment to me, then I am violating your right to property. My desire should not trump your rights. In a case such as that the government should have no say.

The "greater good" argument has been used repeatedly to entice the American populace to relinquish a small portion of its liberty, one tiny step at a time. "Just give up this tiny smidgen of your liberty," the statists promise, "and look at all the good we will do for you." It is quite literally the road to serfdom.

 

[davidallen]

My driving intoxicated is a violation of your rights?

We have determined as a society that the potential for harm (violation of my right to life to state it in your terms) of someone driving drunk is in and of itself sufficient to trump your right to use your property while impaired.

Are you so absolutist that you can't see that rights may indeed conflict and that some rights may trump others?

 

[Ponca Dan]

We have determined as a society that the potential for harm (violation of my right to life to state it in your terms) of someone driving drunk is in and of itself sufficient to trump your right to use your property while impaired.

Are you so absolutist that you can't see that rights may indeed conflict and that some rights may trump others?

There is a big difference between an action having the potential to violate your rights and an action that actually violates your rights, wouldn’t you agree? So, no, I’m not seeing the example you made as a conflict of rights.

Yes, I am an absolutist when it comes to defending individual liberty. And, no, I do not agree that some rights trump others.

As regards the 1964 Civil Rights Act I ask that you read the John Dickinson thread, at least his first quote. He said it much better than I ever have. All his quotes on that thread are applicable.

 

[aix_xpert]

I made a statement earlier in this thread about Trump #losing due to this response and tone regarding the NFL players protesting. I think I want to retract that. All of a sudden, the NFL players are now kneeling (in unity) prior to the anthem and all but a very few are standing for the anthem. No one has said it in the media, and we know no one wants to give Trump any credit, but I have to believe that Trump's message played a part in changing that behavior to something much more palatable.