If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
This is ridiculous, how many times do I have to explain to you that in this instance THEY DON'T. If you don't believe me go and read the Race Relations Act, the Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights. I cant back myself up with 3 of the most important pieces of legislation passed in this country. Yet you continue to insist this fantastical little delusion that some vague concept of "private property" rights allows you to ignore all three of the above.
If you're trying to make a point then back yourself up you tool, because at the moment you're making a tit of yourself.
And that legislation should really be repealed. That's my point.
Not looking at things hypothetically and saying 'it's against the law, you can't do it!' is no argument!
You misunderstand. Property right don't extend to entitling the owner to discriminate.
Society doesn't equal the government, much as you'd probably like to believe that legislation preventing racial discrimination is an attempt by the government to oppress the masses the reality is it's just a reflection of the social conscience, which like it or not you have to adhere to. We don't live in an anarchy.
But what you never explain is why. You just continue to insist that if you own something you can do what you like with it. Based on precisely no legal, historical, or practical reasoning.
I am looking at things objectively. I've already explained a number of times that there is a reason it's against the law and thats because society wishes it to be so.
I COULDN'T CARE who is racist! If someone wants to hate n**s and p***s then so be it! If they wish to EXCLUDE them from their business then they should have a right to BASED on the notion of private property ownership AND freedom of association!
Then quite frankly they can fuck off to whichever libertarian fantasy land they like and leave the rest of us who would prefer to coexist in a stable society in peace.
It's more than a little ironic, that you use the principle of freedom of association, a social construct designed to protect the individual from the government, to justify the oppression of various racial groups.
I don't think anyone would unless they were racist and I don't think you are, so why press it so much for you 'principles'?
There is no irony. It's simply taking private property ownership to its fullest extent.
A govt policy change would be beneficial if the nation were better off after the change, do you think that would be so?
Yes people can have principles even if they are not beneficial but they will have a lot of problems convincing other people, as illustrated by the fact that people find your views to be pretty outlandish and even abhorrent.........
The govt will only make law it has a chance of passing through parliamant, they are unlikely to be able to pass laws that people do not see as beneficial.
This is a democracy, the govt must do a decent job or get thrown out, thus they cannot 'make any law it chooses' you bloody well know that.....
It can make or unmake ANY law!
Yes parliament can make any law but they won't if they think it makes them unelectable, so this line of 'argument' is pointless isn't it?
Since the government WITHIN the parliament can make any law it can make a law without regard to 'benefit'.
Wrong. Go read Dicey. Parliament is sovereign in the sense there are NO LEGAL restraints on the laws it can pass. That doesn't mean there aren't any restraints whatsoever, parliament could never for example pass a law that all blue eyed babys be killed without facing some form of revolt.
What is the 'revolt'? How can there be a revolt if the HOuse of Commons AND Lords agree?!
Yes they do! It's the LOGICAL EXTENSION of private property ownership! If you own something, then you have FULL discretion over its usage! That exists in virtually ALL capitalist societites!
Of course there are legal restraints on property ownerhips (how couldn't there be). But in a libertarian society the only legal restraint is NOT to violate other rights to person and property! So someone 'discriminated' against has to live with it!
The belief that the Diceyan doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty places no restrictions on parliament whatsoever is a notoriously common mistake made by those who haven't examined his doctrine properly. Diceyan doctrine is the fundamental explanation of parliamentary supremacy in this country - and he makes quite clear that there is only an absence of LEGAL restraints on parliament. He doesn't claim the nonexistance of any restraints. A parliament cannot pass legislation binding subsequent parliaments, so there's one example that shatters your little assertion.
Here your argument falls down. You keep going on about some logical extension. Based on what? You have, and let me make this clear, presented precisely no reason why if you own something you can racially discriminate on it's behalf, other than this ambiguous notion of a "logical extension"
It doesn't exist in "virtually ALL capitalist societies". It doesn't exist in the UK, it doesn't exist in the rest of continental Europe and it doesn't exist in the US. So exactly which capitalist societies are you talking about?
We do not live in a libertarian society.
Libertarians routinely fail to appreciate that they did not obtain their property or their ability to acquire the same without the sacrifices of time, money and effort of a great many others throughout their life (parents, teachers, the vast array of public servants taking care of the day to day expectations which make other pursuits possible for the rest of us, etc.).
I'm referring to private property rights dipshit. How is there NO private property in a capitalist society?!
Oh cram it fuckwit. If you understood libertarianism you'd realise in a minarchist government you can do what you WISH with your property provided you respected other rights. Are you going to re-iterate things I already know again?
Oh please. You were referring to the right to discriminate because you owned something, not the right to own something. So was I.
When you can think of an argument to support your nonsensical little rantings that you keep refusing to back up then post that, and stop wasting my time picking upon semantics.
Someone of your legal 'expertise' should comprehend the above.
Note the part regarding EXCLUDING NON-OWNERS.
Congratulations you've succeeded in defining the word property. Have a medal. What you apparently have misunderstood is that the definition of property as being something with which you could exclude someone from doesn't mean that you should be able to exclude.
If I owned a bus company, I could ultimately exclude people from the bus. That doesn't mean I should be allowed to.
I'll take this oppurtunity before you jump on the back of this to point out I'm only arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to racially discriminate. If you think someone coming into a shop you own is for example going to assault you then you've every right to exclude them.
If you have the RIGHT to exclude then that can mean on a racial basis!!
And I think you should. Contemporary society plays too much into 'race'.
I'll try and articulate myself better. The property definition you gave presented defined property as something you had the ability to exclude people from. That doesn't mean you have the right to exclude someone. And in modern captialist society. You don't.
Or is your only objection to barring races on PC grounds?
My objection to racial discrimination is that is fundamentally wrong. It isn't a right of property ownership - 'rights' are social constructs, society doesn't afford you this right. So you don't have it.
As I said before, it's a logical extension of property rights. If you can control its use and exclude then WHY NOT on racial terms? Whether it's immoral or not is not relevant, morality changes over time!
In theory the government could make murder legal. You've still proved absolutely nothing.
*sigh* Because society doesn't work like that. Like it or not we don't operate a libertarian society.
Why?
If you're truly only arguing because you 'despise' racial discrimination, then I do not agree. I believe shops SHOULD have a right to racially discriminate.