Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

freedom of association

1235»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But why should they have that right when it could potentially disadvantage others to a huge extent? Why should people be allowed to say, 'I won't serve n****rs, get out of my shop?' Why is this right? Why do you think it's right? Yes, people have discretion over how and to what purpose their private property is used for, but there has to be limits.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by the sole liber
    Even with been given evidence (which you haven't to support your claims) you consistently come up with the 'racist' argument.
    Why?

    What are you wanting evidence to prove? I've already referred you to the race relations act and the human rights act. Society cannot operate without rules, one of those rules is you aren't allowed to discriminate against others because of their race. It helps society function.

    What more do you want? Whats different between your demand to be allowed to prevent blacks entering your shop because they're black and someone demanding to be allowed to kill any blacks on his property? Society doesn't work like that. Individual rights are social constructs.

    What your not grasping is that any private property rights you may have don't supercede another individuals rights not to be discriminated against on grounds of race. I don't think I can articulate that any more clearly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wouldn't advocate a property owner killing a black person on his property. That would violate the black's right to life (which is listed in your human rights act).
    Why do you think it's right? Yes, people have discretion over how and to what purpose their private property is used for, but there has to be limits.

    I've already stated WHAT I believe should be the limits!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by the sole liber
    I've already stated WHAT I believe should be the limits!
    I.e. Almost none. Why is racism ok? A person who is dioscriminated shouldn't 'have to live with it'! Why should they? They have as much a right to do what any other person does! Some stuff I found
    One libertarian position holds that the law should neither promote racial discrimination nor prohibit it.
    But this can't work because
    laws prohibiting racial discrimination are necessary to achieve the goal of a fair society where equal opportunity is available to all
    Yet you seem to have a problem with this. Let the 'strong' survive. Although an attractive approach, this dismisses that fact that the 'weak' are also people, and as such have personal needs just as much as the 'strong'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .e. Almost none.

    Wrong. Rights to person and property should be respected.
    Why is racism ok? A person who is dioscriminated shouldn't 'have to live with it'! Why should they? They have as much a right to do what any other person does!

    Maybe so, but a store has no right to serve them.

    One libertarian position holds that the law should neither promote racial discrimination nor prohibit it.

    Yes. And?
    Yet you seem to have a problem with this. Let the 'strong' survive. Although an attractive approach, this dismisses that fact that the 'weak' are also people, and as such have personal needs just as much as the 'strong'.

    I don't believe that at all. The basis of my belief in discriminating in this instance is PROPERTY RIGHTS!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is ridiculous. We're going round in circles.

    You believe that property rights supercede human rights. Well they don't. At least not in this country.

    Why is it you're prepared to accept the exitence of the individuals right to protection from force and fraud, but not from oppression? Your views are flawed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Property rights form part of human rights.
    Why is it you're prepared to accept the exitence of the individuals right to protection from force and fraud, but not from oppression?

    Because NO force or fraud is committed by excluding someone on the basis of race!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by the sole liber
    Property rights form part of human rights.

    Based on what? You go find me what part of the Human Right Act stipulates ownership entitles you to racially discriminate?
    Because NO force or fraud is committed by excluding someone on the basis of race!

    What on earth are you talking about? I asked you why you believed in the protection of the individual from force or fraud but not from oppression? And you answer because no force or fraud is involved in oppression? Thats not answering the question. So I'll reiterate.

    Why is it you respect someones right to protection from force or fraud but not from oppression? Do you think there's nothing wrong with oppression?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Isnt there a point to be made... If you own something you should have the right to say who uses it?

    I own a car and I can racially disciminate all I want, likewise with my food I can say who can eat it and who cant. We do have freedom to racially discriminate in some areas at the moment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Rocksteady
    I own a car and I can racially disciminate all I want, likewise with my food I can say who can eat it and who cant.

    Actually you can't.

    Taken from the Race Relations Act 1976

    "s 20 Provision of goods, facilities or services.

    (1) It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against a person who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services--
    (a) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with any of them;

    (2) The following are examples of the facilities and services mentioned in subsection (1)--
    (a) access to and use of any place which members of the public are permitted to enter;
    (f) facilities for transport or travel;"


    If you want to start concerning yourself with offering people lifts in your car you cannot discriminate on grounds of race.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You seam to be correct there then...
Sign In or Register to comment.