Sheriffs sue Colorado over legal marijuana

[Fogdog]

Thanks for asking politely. First let me make sure you understand what my argument is and isn't. I'm not a fan of forced segregation or of forced integration. I think that all human interactions should be on a consensual and voluntary basis decided by those individuals involved not a third party using force or threatening it.

I don't understand the motivation for disallowing a paying customer based on race either, in fact, I think it's pretty dumb. If a person wants to run their business in a dumb way, what gives me the right to make them do otherwise?

I also don't understand your view on property rights, which I think is an important element to consider when discussing who can say what happens or doesn't happen in a given situation. For instance at the most basic level, I think all individuals own themselves and nobody has the right to make them interact with somebody they prefer not to or to prevent them from ingesting something they like to smoke, eat or drink.

Two different topics in your post. I think the first topic is regarding freedom to associate and participate in our society. The second topic pertains to property rights and what that means.

Let me start with the first topic. You say you don't support segregation so we agree on at least something. Ending segregation was only possible when laws preventing economic participation, education, voting, mobility, etc., of people of color were struck down. One of the casualties of this struggle was the ability for a shop-owner or other public establishment to discriminate based upon a person's skin color. This was necessary because it was practically impossible for a black person to move about and conduct business in the south without being able to enter stores, restaurants, train stations or stay in hotels. I don't see how you can say that rolling back laws preventing discrimination is not a movement backward towards segregation.

Regarding the second topic. Property rights are a legal construct. These rights are whatever laws say they are. In principle, the people of this country votes into office the members of congress, the president and in a certain county in Colorado, that dumbshit sheriff. If congress passes a bill and the president signs it, it becomes a law. If a law is challenged and the courts uphold a law then it continues to be the law. You may not want to believe it but this is the way it works -- what you think is not important. The law currently says that a shop owner may not discriminate based upon a persons skin color. They do not have that right. Courts have upheld this law. The law can be changed. I don't know why you would want this because it would mean we have moved backward towards segregation.

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't understand the motivation for disallowing a paying customer based on race either, in fact, I think it's pretty dumb.

thus you defend it every fucking day.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm not a racist

then why do you defend discrimination based on skin color daily and call the president by racial slurs?

 

[Harrekin]

Two different topics in your post. I think the first topic is regarding freedom to associate and participate in our society. The second topic pertains to property rights and what that means.

Let me start with the first topic. You say you don't support segregation so we agree on at least something. Ending segregation was only possible when laws preventing economic participation, education, voting, mobility, etc., of people of color were struck down. One of the casualties of this struggle was the ability for a shop-owner or other public establishment to discriminate based upon a person's skin color. This was necessary because it was practically impossible for a black person to move about and conduct business in the south without being able to enter stores, restaurants, train stations or stay in hotels. I don't see how you can say that rolling back laws preventing discrimination is not a movement backward towards segregation.

Regarding the second topic. Property rights are a legal construct. These rights are whatever laws say they are. In principle, the people of this country votes into office the members of congress, the president and in a certain county in Colorado, that dumbshit sheriff. If congress passes a bill and the president signs it, it becomes a law. If a law is challenged and the courts uphold a law then it continues to be the law. You may not want to believe it but this is the way it works -- what you think is not important. The law currently says that a shop owner may not discriminate based upon a persons skin color. They do not have that right. Courts have upheld this law. The law can be changed. I don't know why you would want this because it would mean we have moved backward towards segregation.

So you don't agree with a person's natural right to own justly acquired property?

 

[Rob Roy]

Two different topics in your post. I think the first topic is regarding freedom to associate and participate in our society. The second topic pertains to property rights and what that means.

Let me start with the first topic. You say you don't support segregation so we agree on at least something. Ending segregation was only possible when laws preventing economic participation, education, voting, mobility, etc., of people of color were struck down. One of the casualties of this struggle was the ability for a shop-owner or other public establishment to discriminate based upon a person's skin color. This was necessary because it was practically impossible for a black person to move about and conduct business in the south without being able to enter stores, restaurants, train stations or stay in hotels. I don't see how you can say that rolling back laws preventing discrimination is not a movement backward towards segregation.

Regarding the second topic. Property rights are a legal construct. These rights are whatever laws say they are. In principle, the people of this country votes into office the members of congress, the president and in a certain county in Colorado, that dumbshit sheriff. If congress passes a bill and the president signs it, it becomes a law. If a law is challenged and the courts uphold a law then it continues to be the law. You may not want to believe it but this is the way it works -- what you think is not important. The law currently says that a shop owner may not discriminate based upon a persons skin color. They do not have that right. Courts have upheld this law. The law can be changed. I don't know why you would want this because it would mean we have moved backward towards segregation.

Thank you for your considered response. While I disagree with some of it, I appreciate the way you approached the discussion.

You don't "fix" horrible things like legislatively enacted segregation, which is a kind of a property right violation against a human being by instituting another form of property rights violation, the removal of the right of property use and determination by the owner.

Property rights can be part of a legal construct, but not always. Rights do not come from government, not if they are inalienable anyhow. A black person while prevented legally from exercising their right of "owning themself" ,STILL owned themself even when the laws denied them that right. However that same black person or white person or any person doesn't own the property of another, so why should they be able to force somebody to interact with them on property that they don't own?

And no, protection of a property right does NOT mean an automatic move back to segregation in the absolute or even to a small degree. It could mean that in some instances, some people will no doubt seek to avoid interacting with others based on something silly like race. As long as they remain on their property, I'm not willing to initiate force on them....are you? How do you justify violating a right of one person if they are not violating the right of another person?

However most people act in self interest, especially when conducting business, do you really think a business that didn't serve somebody based on race could last very long if the government stayed out of it? Would you go there and give them your business? I wouldn't.

Government cannot give you rights, they can only give you a revokable privilege.

Laws that embrace telling other people they cannot interact or they must interact are not the kind I endorse. Shouldn't the individuals involved decide that?

 

[Rob Roy]

then why do you defend discrimination based on skin color daily and call the president by racial slurs?

I'm sorry sir, the bathroom is closed and the big people are talking now. Maybe later Poopy Pants...you'll just have to hold it.

 

[UncleBuck]

So you don't agree with a person's natural right to own justly acquired property?

ya mean the property that was stolen from the narives, who mixed their own labor in with the land, thereby owning it in robrot's opinion?

 

[UncleBuck]

However that same black person or white person or any person doesn't own the property of another, so why should they be able to force somebody to interact with them on property that they don't own?

they can't force them. it's called a private club.

do you really think a business that didn't serve somebody based on race could last very long if the government stayed out of it?

history says yes.

even present day events show people lining up to patronize businesses that are openly hostile to gays, or which deny service to gays.

just call up arlene's flowers in richmond washington for proof. they refuse service to gays, and are doing just fine. no boycotts, nothing.

your desire to move back to segregation is transparent, especially when you repeatedly refer to the president by racial slurs.

 

[Fogdog]

So you don't agree with a person's natural right to own justly acquired property?

First of all, even this country's founding fathers debated this one. Most everybody believes that life and liberty are natural or inalienable rights. Locke was a proponent of natural or "inalienable rights" to include property. Jefferson set down a list of inalienable rights in the declaration of independence to be: life, liberty and the purfuit of happineff. With that said, yes, I agree that the ability to acquire and keep property is entwined with liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is different from property rights. The law can constrain a person's use of property. Just because you own a gun, you can't go shooting it wherever you want. Just because you own some land, you can't make it a toxic waste storage site without following the law. And, our society saw fit to restrain many public establishments from discriminating based upon the color of one's skin. This was not done arbitrarily. Much debate and some blood was shed over this subject.

So let me ask you a question: Do you think that the dismantling of Jim Crow was a benefit to this country?

 

[bu$hleaguer]

Not sure what any of this race argument is about so disregard if I'm out of context, but I'm pretty sure you can refuse service to anyone for any legal reason or for no reason at all. Go ahead and yell at 'em to get the fuck outta your shop if you want to, just don't say it's because of their race. If it's your shop as long as you don't do anything illegal you can do as you choose.

 

[Harrekin]

Not sure what any of this race argument is about so disregard if I'm out of context, but I'm pretty sure you can refuse service to anyone for any legal reason or for no reason at all. Go ahead and yell at 'em to get the fuck outta your shop if you want to, just don't say it's because of their race. If it's your shop as long as you don't do anything illegal you can do as you choose.

Until they claim youre discriminating on the basis of the fact they're black/gay/Martian.

 

[bu$hleaguer]

Until they claim youre discriminating on the basis of the fact they're black/gay/Martian.

Yep, true dat.

 

[Fogdog]

Thank you for your considered response. While I disagree with some of it, I appreciate the way you approached the discussion.

You don't "fix" horrible things like legislatively enacted segregation, which is a kind of a property right violation against a human being by instituting another form of property rights violation, the removal of the right of property use and determination by the owner.

Property rights can be part of a legal construct, but not always. Rights do not come from government, not if they are inalienable anyhow. A black person while prevented legally from exercising their right of "owning themself" ,STILL owned themself even when the laws denied them that right. However that same black person or white person or any person doesn't own the property of another, so why should they be able to force somebody to interact with them on property that they don't own?

And no, protection of a property right does NOT mean an automatic move back to segregation in the absolute or even to a small degree. It could mean that in some instances, some people will no doubt seek to avoid interacting with others based on something silly like race. As long as they remain on their property, I'm not willing to initiate force on them....are you? How do you justify violating a right of one person if they are not violating the right of another person?

However most people act in self interest, especially when conducting business, do you really think a business that didn't serve somebody based on race could last very long if the government stayed out of it? Would you go there and give them your business? I wouldn't.

Government cannot give you rights, they can only give you a revokable privilege.

Laws that embrace telling other people they cannot interact or they must interact are not the kind I endorse. Shouldn't the individuals involved decide that?

It seems to me that you are saying how things should be according to your ideology and not how they actually are.

Case in point (I'm paraphrasing your statement for the sake of brevity): You say: "You don't "fix" legislatively enacted segregation, by the removal of the right of property use and determination by the owner". In fact this country did enact legislation that constrained public establishments from discriminating based on race. This was key to abolishing segregation.

Your third paragraph regarding property rights gave me a brain cramp . What I think you said was that property rights are inalienable (a natural right), people own themselves by natural right and no law can interfere with what people do with their property. My apologies if I got this wrong, but based on my interpretation of what you said, my response is: In order to conduct a larger society, we have enacted laws regarding the use of property, some good, some bad. Laws criminalizing the use of MJ are currently the law of the land. I think we both agree that laws that criminalize the use of MJ should be repealed so, they are bad. I think they are not justified and should be repealed. Laws that restrict companies from storing toxic waste on their property in an unsafe condition are necessary for public safety, I think they are justified.

I think that you are also saying that discrimination based on race at a public establishment does not violate the affected person's right to life and liberty. History is against you on this. When Jim Crow laws were in place, black people were not free to move about. In many mid-sized cities in the south, there were no hotels or restaurants that would take them. Stores wouldn't sell them goods. It was this way for almost 100 years. I guess you can imagine a place where "separate but equal" establishments sit side-by-side but the reality in our past was that under Jim Crow, no public services were available to blacks in many parts of the south. You may say that you don't want to bring back segregation but your proposal to roll back anti-discrimination laws will in fact bring it back. To answer your question -- how can I justify telling a shop keeper that they must not discriminate? Anti discrimination laws are justified by what happened when white shopkeepers acted together to prevent black people from exercising their right to life and liberty. This is not a theoretical argument. I just don't want to see the past repeat itself.

So, let me ask you a question: Do you think that this country is better off with Jim Crow laws in place or with laws in place to prevent them?

 

[Fogdog]

Not sure what any of this race argument is about so disregard if I'm out of context, but I'm pretty sure you can refuse service to anyone for any legal reason or for no reason at all. Go ahead and yell at 'em to get the fuck outta your shop if you want to, just don't say it's because of their race. If it's your shop as long as you don't do anything illegal you can do as you choose.

You are right. These laws mostly apply to larger establishments in cities where its easier to prove discrimination. At Joe Cracker's Stop and Rob Bait Store, he can pretty much do whatever he wants. Especially in the rural south. Not sure how this could be called a good thing though.

 

[bu$hleaguer]

You are right. These laws mostly apply to larger establishments in cities where its easier to prove discrimination. At Joe Cracker's Stop and Rob Bait Store, he can pretty much do whatever he wants. Especially in the rural south. Not sure how this could be called a good thing though.

No, it's not a good thing if it's used immorally. I wasn't implying that. Just seemed like an argument about legality so I threw it out there.

 

[Fogdog]

if i can't shoot house reps in the head with my gun, do i even really own it, or am i a slave who is being raped?

That's terrible! Why am I laughing?

 

[Rob Roy]

It seems to me that you are saying how things should be according to your ideology and not how they actually are.

Case in point (I'm paraphrasing your statement for the sake of brevity): You say: "You don't "fix" legislatively enacted segregation, by the removal of the right of property use and determination by the owner". In fact this country did enact legislation that constrained public establishments from discriminating based on race. This was key to abolishing segregation.

Your third paragraph regarding property rights gave me a brain cramp . What I think you said was that property rights are inalienable (a natural right), people own themselves by natural right and no law can interfere with what people do with their property. My apologies if I got this wrong, but based on my interpretation of what you said, my response is: In order to conduct a larger society, we have enacted laws regarding the use of property, some good, some bad. Laws criminalizing the use of MJ are currently the law of the land. I think we both agree that laws that criminalize the use of MJ should be repealed so, they are bad. I think they are not justified and should be repealed. Laws that restrict companies from storing toxic waste on their property in an unsafe condition are necessary for public safety, I think they are justified.

I think that you are also saying that discrimination based on race at a public establishment does not violate the affected person's right to life and liberty. History is against you on this. When Jim Crow laws were in place, black people were not free to move about. In many mid-sized cities in the south, there were no hotels or restaurants that would take them. Stores wouldn't sell them goods. It was this way for almost 100 years. I guess you can imagine a place where "separate but equal" establishments sit side-by-side but the reality in our past was that under Jim Crow, no public services were available to blacks in many parts of the south. You may say that you don't want to bring back segregation but your proposal to roll back anti-discrimination laws will in fact bring it back. To answer your question -- how can I justify telling a shop keeper that they must not discriminate? Anti discrimination laws are justified by what happened when white shopkeepers acted together to prevent black people from exercising their right to life and liberty. This is not a theoretical argument. I just don't want to see the past repeat itself.

So, let me ask you a question: Do you think that this country is better off with Jim Crow laws in place or with laws in place to prevent them?

Jim crow laws were wrong, obviously. The were instituted to prevent people from associating on a consensual basis. If you agree with that, why would you then want laws that INSIST people associate on a non-consenting basis?

You skirt over something too... using force to prevent people from associating is wrong, but so is using force to MAKE people associate on a non-consenting basis.

This issue transcends race and goes to freedom of association and individual rights. If others are allowed to force people to associate...what has happened?

I'm not proposing rolling back anti-segregation laws anymore than I am proposing forced association laws...I'm saying what other people do with their body and their justly acquired property is nobodies business but theirs. It only becomes your business or mine when their actions deprive us of the use of OUR property or OUR body and not until then.

You are being inconsistent, I am not. On one hand you seem to agree that force is wrong, but then you attempt to justify its use in a non-defensive way. Why?

I do appreciate that you have presented your points in a reasonable fashion. Thank you.

 

[UncleBuck]

It only becomes your business or mine when their actions deprive us of the use of OUR property or OUR body and not until then.

are you familiar with history?

your desired way of doing tings harmed blacks greatly, by metrics which you say cause harm. decreased competition, higher prices, barriers to entry...these things caused harm. you have stated that these specific things cause harm.

so why do you insist that racists like you have a right to cause harm?

 

[UncleBuck]

I think racism is stupid

then why do you frequently refer to the president by racist slurs?

forcing people to associate on a non-consenting basis is stupid too.

who's forced?

they can open a private club if they are racist and hateful like you.

tactics that rapists use

selling gasoline to a black person is like getting raped?

 

[Rob Roy]

are you familiar with history?

your desired way of doing tings harmed blacks greatly, by metrics which you say cause harm. decreased competition, higher prices, barriers to entry...these things caused harm. you have stated that these specific things cause harm.

so why do you insist that racists like you have a right to cause harm?

Your premise is flawed, it relies on a false assertion, I'm not a racist. However you ARE an admitted floor shitter.

Racists have no right to initiate aggression to other people or their property. Yet, no other people have a right to initiate harm (trespass) to a racists property.

My desired way of doing things is not to initiate aggression ANYWHERE. You would take away a persons right to be left alone EVEN IF THEY REMAIN ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY. Sounds very prohibitionist like to me.