ParanoiA

Ah, I'm not only "unopposed" to the idea of society rejecting discrimination, I'm advocating that society reject discrimination, feircly. My central theme from the very beginning is that this rejection never be done by government force - law. And my reasoning for that is based on the assumption that moral codes and ethics are an ever evolving, changing construct that is retarded by static law. And, by natural consequence of ever changing human values, has historically proven to be as guilty of perpetuating a discriminatory practice as erradicating one. And to me, the greatest sin we could commit is to endorse a discriminatory practice in legislation - even if we didn't mean to, even if we meant well. I don't think we can trust our present notions of values to be the same in the future, so law can only serve against us. I reject discrimination in my personal life by rejecting the haters. I lost a friend, a neighbor, because he didn't respect my offense to his epithetical references to black folks. He also had issues with homosexuality - actually stated proudly that he would reject his own son if he came home "queer". I laughed at him over this, asked him if he was afraid it was contagious, but it's really not funny. I don't want this language used around my kids, and I don't want to hear it myself. As cliche as it sounds, our kids really are our future. And I want them to experience and interpret the world from a biased free perspective - as much as is possible, anyway.

I tried to pretend it wasn't happening but they were all over my local channels...ahhh!! Actually, I was hoping Hillary was going to add some drama and make a serious play for the nomination. That would've been kick ass. I know you guys would have hated it, but I like Hillary better on foreign affairs and next to Obama she seems less self absorbed. I'm also thinking she may have a better shot at winning the presidency for the democrats. A while ago I made my little prediction that Obama would be it - no doubt. But I'm just not "seeing" it now. My prescience has given me the cold shoulder. I say McCain-Romney out loud and my mind reel plays flashes of McCain in the oval office, Romney asleep in his chair, I see President McCain in a news story. I say Obama-Biden...and I get nothing. I'm just not feeling it ya'll. Something is wrong in the force.

Yeah, that's one of my favorite precedences of George's. One of things I really appreciate about Washington is that he seemed to have understood the importance of setting the "above party" tone for the presidency and was largely followed by Adams, and all out abandoned by Jefferson. I'm a little angry at Jefferson for how he treated Adams and his approach to party politics. I've always felt we all have our roles to play, but the role of the president, and even legislators, is a different role from you and I.

I couldn't agree more. They pick and choose who gets hired to work there - they are picking and choosing who gets to "utilize" their business. I don't know of any non-profit golf clubs and hospices only take the dying even though they probably have the facilities to nurse some people back to health - but no, they only take the dying. These are, of course, reasonable objections because we all happen to agree. If we didn't agree, then you'd propose overriding their rights to specialize. One day we probably won't agree, and that is exactly what the people will likely do - force business to give up yet more rights so the people can make them behave how they want. After all, they're not people, they're businesses...they don't matter. Just a bunch of profiteers. What you're arguing here is the origination of "rights" and by your logic here we don't have any. Everything is just a privilege nodded by the group. So why quote the constitution or get all bent out of shape about congress declaring war? The reason why is because the idea of "rights" and the power of government has already been negotiated and recorded into contract called the constitution. I'm simply arguing the principles codified in that agreement between the people. I'm taking the concepts developed in that contract and arguing for their relevance and reverance. One of those concepts is "rights". If we're going to have such a thing as "rights" and individual choice and free will, then I'd prefer it be consistent. I do not agree with the people's rationale to demand what kind of business I can operate on my land, or really anything that happens on my land unless it causes direct harm or consequence to them or their land. Like polluting a river, or burning your lawn. I don't even understand where the people get that authority, in a philosophical sense to feel they can decide what I do with my land without any direct damage to qualify. I would never presume my neighbor should live up to MY ideas of business and fairness even if there's a hundred of me and only one of him. Nice segway. I was hoping this would come up. Well, my libertarian tendencies lead me away from student loads from the government, but there are other scenarios as well that will garner a response of some kind from a government entity. I do agree that the government should have a "position" on discrimination - where the government employee base must respresent the position of "the people" for matters not involving rights, and judgement and so forth. This is going to be a functional consequence of who we elect in office and should represent the people. So, I have no issues with our government "aid" mirroring a moral and ethical code. We, the people, should always require fair and decent statesmen that would also demand staff and policies that are not discriminatory in any way. In that sense, the government will use a moral code set. But I vehemently disagree with using a code set to judge and restrict other citizens' range of rights. The key here is restriction. The government having an "opinion" is fine, but to legislate that opinion into punishment and consequence is wrong. And so does lack of college education for the people - but when does it become a "right"? There are plenty of rotten things we can do to each other that isn't healthy for us or our communities but we're still free to do them. Consider this: You don't have a right to not be offended. You don't have a right to be liked. Likewise, I am not obligated to talk to you, or even be nice to you in any way. I am perfectly free to offend you, so long as I don't harrass you. With that in mind, tell me again how "prejudice and discrimination cause objectively verifiable and clinically predictable harm to individuals, groups, and communities" while still recognizing those rights I mentioned above. Remember, I can cause harm to the community and discriminate freely, for a big part, using rights I have right now. This is the heart of my point about rights. You have to demonstrate a right to access the service in the first place, in order to logically conclude damage by restricting that right. Well, if you have a "right" to access the service, then why is that service provider free to close their doors altogether and service no one at all? If it's a right, then how does that stand? Because it isn't a right. We make believe it is, and rationalize that it is, so we can then conclude "damage" and then interfere out of "nobility". It couldn't until that leap was made. It was personal choice that opened the doors of that business, not a legislated right to that business by the people. Yes, Fred is free to do without all of these things. They are not a right. I don't have a right to a vacuum cleaner. I have a right to roam and search for a vacuum cleaner and find someone who will trade stuff with me for it. No one has a right to stop my search or block my path on my search. There's no justifying it. It's not ok to discriminate. It's not ok for the government to have an "opinion" on moral behavior and then legislate it - no matter how much all of us agree with this opinion. That's all I'm saying. The consequence would be relatively transparent. No one is going to commit financial, capitalist suicide by promoting any kind of discrimination. The only exception being racist organizations, like the KKK or black panthers, which are already in operation even under our subjective law structure.

The court system interprets the constitution so public opinion is irrelevant in any case. The creation of a law is generally, but not always, supported by the majority. It is, at the very least, a function of pluralism and carries the mood of the society as a whole. Legislators are elected by a majority vote, and pass laws using a majority voting system - so while its technically possible a law could get passed that nobody but those legislators wanted, it isn't very likely and certainly isn't the case with most laws in this country. It took governments and free market to create it in the first place. In reference to my quote, abominations like slavery got government endorsement. But again, you're lumping business in with homestead. That same security and infrastructure is necessary for building neighborhoods and policing them too - if that's going to be your qualifier to limit individual choice from the market, then why not the home? I just don't agree with the partition. For the same reason Hooters, Exclusive Golf Clubs and hospices pick and choose which people can or cannot utilize their business. "All the people" also govern the land my house is on. Why should "all the people" grant me a plot of land, purchase it, if I'm going to pick and choose who can utilize it? It's a false partition and I'm just not buying it. Just because I start "trading" out of it, suddenly all these exceptions start flying out of the woodwork. It's either ok to discriminate or not - cherry picking freedom always happens when people don't like the way others are using their freedom. Well it wouldn't be "cherry picking" if they didn't know they were crossing the line - they just figure it's for "noble" reasons, so it's ok.

I've always thought that hitting your kids in anger, when you wouldn't normally do it, is abuse. More important, though more subtle, these "I've had enough" based physical punishments are borderline abuse - again, if it's not part of your normal array of punishments, then you're just venting - which means abuse when it's physical. That said, I try not to "vent" and try to be more consistent. I do strongly believe in physical domination, but careful to confuse that with physical manhandling or beating. I haven't hit either of my children in years - 15 and 12 - and they both deserve it, even - instead I represent a line they will not cross. We, as parents, have a duty to show that line and teach our children about physical mastery. We have a duty to teach our little ones how to deal with the big bad world. So I don't sugar coat it for them; might makes right.

I would agree it's a fair risk, ONLY, if it took the hand of government to make society treat each other equally. But it doesn't. As I've said, laws implicitly come from the majority opinion held by society, so the hand of government does not "lead" society but rather "follows" society - or more to the point, the majority of it. So laws are just covering a minority of those that don't agree with the majority - so the risk is far too great, the violation of principle far too dear, in my opinion. Whether we like it or not, we already leave it up to society to decide what is and what isn't discriminated against. Keeping it off the law books is my concern, so we don't repeat abominations like slavery and so the classes, sexes, races, and etc can all bond together from mutual appreciation and gain, creating a much healthier relationship than the one we've enjoyed from forced integration via the sacrifice of basic personal property rights. And so we don't become hypocrites, ourselves, to posterity. I'm not sure, technically, but I'm quite sure you're right realistically. They are the owners, but I'm not sure of your point. The property was traded to my ownership without condition other than the laws of the land, which is dictated by a republic in which I am a member. I'm not actually arguing that they shouldn't dictate law to me, I'm only arguing how they make the laws that they dictate. I've got this crazy notion that they should not codify morality into our laws, but to instead let society deal with the variables and challenges of moral behavior and restrict law to direct violations of freedom. That doesn't not mean the freedom to business with someone who doesn't want to do business with me - that means the freedom to do business with who does want to do business with me, like prostitution, gambling, gay pride organization, labor union, whatever.... Yes. If there's no hospital at all what do they do? Everytime you question whether a business should be allowed to discriminate, consider its very existence. The fact you're ok with overriding their liberties enough to demand they do business with those they don't wish to, but not ok with overriding their very right to exist, then you have to question your reasoning. If I can refuse to cooperate with your law by going out of business altogether, then how sound is the reasoning you're using to justify the law in the first place? If it's so threatening and important that I serve everyone in my business, then it ought to be so threatening and important I'm not allowed to shut down at all. That's what makes it hard to see indiscriminate access to my business as a "right" - when I can eliminate that right by simply refusing to even get out of bed.

Not sure, but I believe it's around 10% of our budget. We, the taxpayers, pay for it. I like a huge, strong military. I prefer to have at least twice the military might of our closest number two superpower, at all times, preferably more. The military should be so daunting that no nation would risk an invasion or major conflict for even the best of reasons. Naturally, I would assume all nations would enjoy that security. Naturally, I would assume all of us attempt to achieve it. And naturally still, I would assume that only a mere few of us can even come close. And even naturally still, I would assume all others to be resentful...bombus.

Discrimination is legislated against to assimilate the minority. Seriously, think this out: Most laws, not always, but generally are formed by a majority support. Discrimination already had to be worked out by society - whether you like or not, my point is more or less reality - free society had to think it was wrong before the people they elected could make it wrong by law. At that point, you're sweeping up the minority that doesn't agree, forcing them to comply. The horrible consequence to sweeping up the minority haters, is that now you establish a precedence - the power of the government to subjectively determine rules of behavior as good or bad is now legitimate. I have posited that it is this power that enabled slavery. Slavery couldn't have been sanctified unless governments gave themselves the power to judge one man over another by purely subjective means - moral and ethical conclusions. Why do you support the same principles that allowed an institution like slavery to exist - government supported and perpetuated? I'm sorry, but I look to that as a lesson that was supposed to have been learned. I think most took from it that we were hypocrites and weren't judging others fairly - I took from it that we weren't supposed to be judging each other in the first freaking place. Because my house and my business are both property that I paid for' date=' thank you very much. But just because I decide to trade bread from one of them, suddenly I have to have my right of choice stripped because other people don't have the imagination to get bread any other way than from me? Again...I'm struck by your own words: No, it has to do with the principle that what you own is your property to use as you wish and it shouldn't matter if you live in it or sell bread out of it. It's still yours. And if you're going to say a business has to give everyone access then why not practice some consistency and say the same of your house? Why is it that you have no problem with someone being racist with their house and only letting "certain people" come in to visit - but you don't with a business? Their "lack of imagination" on how to collect resources obligating others again? Exactly. Which is why the government should not be making that decision - society should. Free society. Feelings and desires are not government domain. So there is no "right" or "wrong" in the eyes of goverment. Funny that you're not consistent with this principle.

Exactly. So the government has no right to stop it. Just like I can have a sign in my yard that says "no christians or child molestors pls k thx". Instead you should be making an argument that reconciles how you justify free discrimination in your home but not in your business. Or are you up for allowing everybody and anybody to come inside your house whether you want them to or not? For those concerned about winning and losing, that's perhaps a real let down. I'm only concerned with philosophical parity with what I believe. I have to do what I think is right, not what is popular.

Well, I guess I'll have to give them that but they have done this before.

Which is a total rip off as far as I'm concerned. They make us wait a year and a half before we even get any more BSG then they want to drain the last season for all its worth and drag us along even more with this half-season scam. That's like releasing a music CD one year, then another one the next year and selling it like it's the second half of a double album. They've done everything they can to run off the fan base and ensure no one new gets into it or has a chance to watch it. Sorry, I guess I'm a little upset...

To split hairs...you could actually make a case about the value of attention to fatalities by biological versus human causes. If I put X amount of resources into biologically caused death and I get a resultant gain of human lives saved = Y, but putting X amount of resources into human caused death gives me an even greater gain of Y, then it might make sense to invest more heavily into human caused death. Obviously, I have no idea if that's the case, but if you're going to be purely logically driven here, with no appeal to emotion or moral obligation having any value, then follow the logic to its logical ends. Do I get more human life, per pound of attention, from combating biological killers or anthropic killers? I could see someone making a case that doubling a police force in a given area could cause violent death to drop, whereas that same investment in cancer research yields nothing.

Absolutely. Just like I am free to discriminate who enters my house, I should be free to discriminate who enters my business, works at my business, and etc. A job is not a right. Trading with whomever you want shouldn't be a right either. All interaction should be mutual will. To keep people out of your business, denying them access to trade property with you for food and etc is an ugly practice to most of us, depending on the group you're picking on, but it's not justified to institute government sanctified prejudice to override your personal choice by using law, rather you should be punished by the free discrimination and rejection of your business by others. They can trade for food, clothing and etc with someone else, or make their own. Why should one be obligated to sacrifice personal choice just because society "chose" to assimilate itself into a dependent network of grocery stores and etc? Because individuals "chose" that arrangement, now other individuals have to sacrifice their choice? It's akin to the paradigm that one must have a job to survive. In reality, one chooses to work a job as a means to collect their resources. Yeah, I know, ivory tower, blah blah blah...but that's what I believe. And I also think the free market helps to homogenize the classes in a better framework - free will. Even though money may be the ultimate motivator in that arrangement, it's still an act of self will to exercise tolerance to gain business advantage. Anti discrimination law depends on an act of obedience, which encourages resentment and of course, is a major violation of individual choice which has helped to put all kinds of people in jail and prison for no good damn reason - like growing pot plants, or selling sex. Which, consequently, diverts law enforcement resources from stuff like murder and rape to looking for pot heads and hookers. I think that's dumb. Real effin dumb. (Sorry, kind of got on a roll there. You didn't ask for all that!!) Because that's direct damage objectively interpreted and observed. Exactly the government's job to restrict.

The benefit of the constitution is to protect them from being bigoted using law. The constitution is a refutation of legally instituted oppression. Fierce individual liberty is codified in that beauty. And that's not always a pretty sight. But I believe in it utterly. Yeah, I don't agree with the modus operandi of my government. I'm more of the direct harm only type. I realize it would have created an even more segragated demography, but I think it would have allowed the societies to meld together on their own time and terms so it becomes an act of will rather than an act of obedience. I think that would have had a more enduringly healthy effect and we would never have established the precedence of government judgement of societal behavior and morals.

Because it's not all at once and it's not (usually) done at the hands of another malicious human. It does. And it was in my face long before 9/11. I agree here. I think it's because we differentiate wicked acts by humans from wicked acts by natural forces. Maybe it's because we think human malevolence is more preventable and senseless than biological fatalities - of course it's not, the opposite would appear true most of the time. But it's a statement about our demands on morality, more than a statement about our stupidity. Doesn't change the fact though that we should be far more focused and tenacious about cancer, heart disease, etc. If those deaths were caused by terrorism, we'd have trillions going to destroy them.

How about representativeship? That way we can substitute the 'p' for a 't' whenever we need to ridicule them.

Point taken, and well said.

Much of my attitude on this comes from the belief that we americans are more responsible for our government then we like to believe. The power comes from us, and we are a representative democratic system so the power of the individual is as overt and fully vested as can be. Because of that, I see our individual responsibility as equally accountable. So, I tend to be somewhat militant about it. All of your points are well founded and pluralized here, I'm sure. But, given my grounding here, it should be obvious that I'm naturally going to resist anything that seems to undermine that responsibility and accountability. Rock the Vote, and similar campaigns are just ugly to me because they only promote one dynamic, one piece of the process - and it seems to be the "lazy man's" piece - just show up and vote with your gut, kinda thing. So, while it's understandable that Rock the Vote would be appropriate over "Rock the Wake up and go to work" since elections are likely their thing, it's ultimately indefensible, to me anyway, since elections should not be their only thing - their very mission statement is out of whack with my philosophy. And with that, let me say that I need to "Rock the it's time to feed myself again" as it's lunch time and I'm starving. Edit: I'm such an idiot. I could have summarized all that by saying that I'd rather see "Rock the Republic", all the damn time.

Don't lump me in on that. I never even hinted at such an idea. I simply think that market demand is here and capitalism will answer like it always has. The more people hate oil, right or wrong, the more demand for alternatives which will be answered by profiteers in the alternative business. And no, and I don't think it's a rosey picture of transparent change in which the great capitalists of america save the planet and everyone lives happily ever after. I just think it will work, like it always has. Peak Oil Man has posited that massive infrastructure change, lifestyle change, housing change, civil design change - an entire freaking overhaul of the landscape of the united states and way of life is needed to deal with this crisis and requires a huge investment by the government. And I think I'm still understating the scope of his proposed alarm. He does not believe we will be able to be innovative and come up with brand new ideas that do not require that kind of overhaul. If it doesn't involve massive government investment, then he doesn't believe it will work or be fast enough. I don't take issue with Peak Oil, because it's going to peak sometime, inevitably, and there is a laundry list of other reasons to ditch oil in the first place, so it makes little difference to me. I'm already excited about alternative energy solutions because I want energy independence. Me too. And while it may not seem like it, I'm very cautious about giving Lutz credit until he delivers. Salesmen know how to talk and make promises, but I want results. I'll believe it when I see it, and I'll be damn excited about it. That's also why I was curious about the total lifetime of the car without having a combustion engine with thousands of parts to wear down. It could be that these cars start at a higher price, but last much longer, to the point that it becomes cheaper in the end.

Because I'm interfaced with pop culture as much as anyone else and I don't hear "rock the vote" until it's time to vote. The places I hear "rock the vote" crap, don't talk about politics at all except when there's an election. And it seems reasonable they wouldn't talk about politics on a rock station - and unreasonable that they suddenly do, come election time. Either participate in the process or don't - but half assed is the worst contribution of all. And that goes for just about anything in life.

I believe they can and will. All you're really doing here is pointing out how really super duper hard something is and how we couldn't possibly do something super duper hard. That's ridiculous. Capitalism will prove you wrong. I hope you, CPL Luke, and Peak Oil Man are still members on this site for the next few years so that you're accessible for ridicule as we do the super duper hard like we always have.

Well, are we talking about american capitalism? We don't need to actually kill people and destory things in order to create demand to buy weapons. Whether we use them or not, makes little difference as to whether or not we buy them. We're constantly, and rightly, investing in our military and its continuous advancement with or without using any of it. Now, I can see how "ammo" purchasing would obviously go up during war, but the machines themselves, which is where most of the money is at, don't really need a war to justify their development and sale. And it's not like we're losing equipment on any magnitude, in any of our recent conflicts anyway, that would create a need to restock any quicker than peace time. Obviously, weapons manufacturers are as capitalistic as automobile manufacturers and want to sell all they can, and that's to be expected. But, let's not forget that the international market is, by its very nature, unfettered capitalism. An all out competition for resources and it doesn't matter how each nation is internally governed, they externally compete with the rest of us - and that's what wars are all about. So capitalism, when defining the state of affairs between groups of humans we call nations, could certainly be indicted - but then, that's the structure of nature itself so I'm not sure what the point is...passing judgement on mother nature?

I think this is a consequence of his belief that capitalism is responsible for starting wars - competing for resources (the natural state of affairs for all living things for millions and millions of years) instead of just sharing them equally. Are you kidding? We don't need any of them, we can dream up an enemy any ole time. Going to war is a snap here. Congress sure as hell won't get in your way...