Majority rule?

James McMurray · January 20, 2007, 03:00:52 PM

I thought we were voting and making it happen. Nobody mentioned going through my government's legal process. That sort of vote would never work using the government, because there'stoo many large groups of voters that could be called bigots.

Spike · January 20, 2007, 06:36:47 PM

Quote from: James McMurrayI thought we were voting and making it happen. Nobody mentioned going through my government's legal process. That sort of vote would never work using the government, because there'stoo many large groups of voters that could be called bigots.

There is more to it than that, James. Even a lack of voter turnout among bigots would not permit anti-bigot laws being enacted. There is a reason why the judiciary oversight of the legal system is so hard to influence with votes and popularity. This is a check against popular but bad laws.

James McMurray · January 20, 2007, 07:32:20 PM

There are anti-bigot laws. Well, anti-bigotry at least. They're just diversified in different sets of "you can't mess with group X in manner Y" laws. True, a single "no being a bigot" law would never pass, because it's too hard to define what a bigot is. If you could definte all the bigoted acts that can possibly be commited, you could (given time and enough lobbying) pass a law against every single one.

James J Skach · January 20, 2007, 11:50:36 PM

Quote from: AnthrobotLibertairianism could come to the rescue here.
Say that two gay men manage to get a hotel room, in a bigot's hotel.They are having sex when the owner ( who has just heard about the two gay men from the staff member that let them have the room) bangs on the door and shouts " Get out of my hotel you unholy sodomisers!"
One of the gay men replies "If I'm not hurting you ,physically, or anyone else in this hotel then you have fuck all to say on the matter!"
By your criteria the gay gentleman is correct.It involves no laws.
The owner isn't being physically injured, he's just upset because his archaic beliefs are being shown to be outmoded.But that also is allowed by your criteria. Problem solved?

You have a misunderstanding of libertarian thought. Once the owner of the property wants you out, you have no say in the manner. You are there at his behest. Now if he doesn't want to give you your money back, that's a separate issue. But the moment you try to take property from someone (taking a room for the night against his wishes), you are in the wrong. You are taking the owner's property without his consent. Whether his consent is "based on beliefs shown to be outmoded" or not.

James J Skach · January 20, 2007, 11:56:44 PM

Quote from: James McMurrayThere are anti-bigot laws. Well, anti-bigotry at least. They're just diversified in different sets of "you can't mess with group X in manner Y" laws. True, a single "no being a bigot" law would never pass, because it's too hard to define what a bigot is. If you could definte all the bigoted acts that can possibly be commited, you could (given time and enough lobbying) pass a law against every single one.

And many would argue that the portion of the law that states a property owner cannot be a bigot is the source of the problem.

Everyone (that I've seen post here) agrees that it's perfectly valid for laws that force the government (federal, state, and local) to be unprejudiced are perfectly fine. But telling private property owners, including businesses, they can not act as they see fit, is where things get dicey.

How long until it's your private property? What if you put up a sign that said "No radical Christians!" on your property? Your business?

James McMurray · January 21, 2007, 12:58:33 AM

Some people might, but not me. I'm much more concerned with justice than law though.

I'm already restricted in the uses of my private property, and if the government wants to tell me I can't put up a "No radical Christians" sign that's cool. I'll keep doing what I always do, since I've got no anti-radical Christian agenda, nor any reason to put up a sign saying no to any particular group.

If a radical Christian comes by and behaves in a way that makes me want to eject him, he'll be out on his ear and it won't be bigotry doing it.

Spike · January 21, 2007, 05:27:00 AM

Quote from: James McMurrayThere are anti-bigot laws. Well, anti-bigotry at least. They're just diversified in different sets of "you can't mess with group X in manner Y" laws. True, a single "no being a bigot" law would never pass, because it's too hard to define what a bigot is. If you could definte all the bigoted acts that can possibly be commited, you could (given time and enough lobbying) pass a law against every single one.

I very clearly avoided using bigotry in my statement, for this very reason. Defining who is and is not a bigot is no harder than defining who is or is not a jew. Ask those who remember the process of Judenfrie (er...sp?) which eventually consisted of trying to check people bloodlines for signs of taint. The process never ends, no matter who you pick as the target. And personally, it's a dispicable... no matter who the target. Attacking the bigot for his beliefs only reinforces them, and depending upon his actual beliefs proves they are 'right'.

James McMurray · January 21, 2007, 09:07:28 PM

I'm not attacking bigots for their beliefs, only for their actions. You can think whatever you want and I won't ever care, or even know. go outside of thought and the actions will dictate the response.