Judge Nixes Oklahoma's Guns-in-Locked-Cars Law

[Robert Hairless]

Laws that attempt to crush discrimination end up damaging the mutual consent required for a business transaction.

So you say, David, but it takes a special kind of mind to think that way.

You believe that the targets of racial, religious, gender, and age discrimination in business transactions consent to it.

In your view women are happy to be paid less than men for doing the same work and are content to be passed over for promotion in favor of men. In the real world, though, they fight it. You want laws against gender discrimination repealed so that women are once again free to consent to being discriminated against.

You want laws against age discrimination repealed so men and women over a certain age can once again have the right to be fired.

Of course you want people of the "wrong" color to have restoration of their rights to live in shanties, be denied admission to hospitals, barred from lunch counters, turned away from hotels, locked out of public rest rooms, and pay more for goods and food than other people.

You don't see that the essence of discrimination is that it denies people the capability for mutual consent in a business transaction.

In fact that's one of the major problems created by discrimination--that it does not allow for mutual consent in any transaction in which it comes into play.

What you don't get is that laws against discrimination (the ones you think damage the mutual consent required for a business transaction) exist because the people who were objects of that discrimination did not consent to it and fought to have it stopped.

Discrimination never arises out of mutual consent. That's why it is discrimination.

Gun owners, at least many of those here, are different. They like being discriminated against and they want businesses to have a right to discriminate against them.

So when employers deny a right to their employees and the employees consent to that denial and defend it, the employees no longer have that right and it's okay.

In this instance, then, both the Second Amendment that acknowledged the employees' right and the Oklahoma law that guaranteed it within the state are of course wrong. When both employers and employees mutually consent to the denial of the employees' rights, both the Oklahoma law and the Second Amendment should be rendered ineffective. There's your mutual consent.

Based on what I've seen here of postal workers who consent to being barred by the U.S. postal service from having a gun in their cars on post office property and who don't particularly care about it, we all should vehemently oppose any law that prohibited the U.S.P.S. from doing so and we should not attempt to change its policies. There are many other people who don't want their rights denied. Those are the people we should support instead of wasting our time and resources on those who don't mind. Postal workers, from what those who are here say, are not the subjects of discrimination. They like it.

 

[Autolycus]

Robert Hairless: There are no real NO IRISH NEED APPLY signs.

http://www.questia.com/googleSchola...TpPkMJTzYQnBhx6z!-1079984296?docId=5000671286

and

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_social_history/v036/36.2jensen.html

and

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_2_36/ai_95829288/pg_5


I just wanted to point out a common urban legend.

 

[only1asterisk]

Discrimination never arises out of mutual consent.

For mutual consent to be possible the parties of the transaction must be free to refuse consent. Consent under duress of anti-discrimination laws is NOT consent.

Employers, employees, business owners, service providers must should be free to refuse business as they like, be selective in who they employee or what jobs they accept, offer and accept whatever compensation the see fit, and terminate employment at will.

Employees should negotiate for the most favorable conditions available. It makes no matter to me if people that do the same work are paid unequally. It only matters to me that the employee and employer both agree the terms of employment and abide by them.

David

 

[mons meg]

Can we drift this thread back to the original topic? Not that it's not entertaining to watch y'all, but I think most people here are not addressing my earlier point. To paraphrase myself, the Oklahoma Legislature passed a law which is apparently consistent with the Oklahoma Constitution, as no Oklahoma court has ruled against it in the past 3 years or so we've been having this fight.

Now we have a federal court that has issued a permanent injunction not based on a property rights argument, but on a safety argument, thus nullifying the will of the Legislature (and thereby People) of the State of Oklahoma with the stroke of a pen.

One can argue that property rights are implicitly protected by the Constitution via the 3rd and 9th Amendments, but self defense, it can be easily argued, is explicitly protected by the 2nd. Oklahoma tried to extend this right to one's own vehicle, and many folks want to be outraged at the violation of the sanctity of the property rights of an artificial legal construct, i.e. the Conocophillips corporation.

Another way to look at this...I don't see this as being any different that a company saying, "This is a non-smoking facility, so you can't have a pack of cigarettes in your car on company property". Both the pack of cigarettes and the firearm are legal, private possessions being left in the car. The building may be non smoking, but I don't see how they would have any say over what LEGAL items I keep in my car.

 

[Autolycus]

They have legal say as in you made a contract with the company by accepting employment with them. If you want to keep guns, cigarettes, or what not in your car that is fine. However the contract says that you cannot have it in your car on their property. That is the deal. If you want to keep it in your car thats fine just stay off of their property.

 

[1x2]

Totally as an aside, if one were to make the argument that a prohibition of firearms in my vehicle results in loss of value (safety), doesn't the company have to give me something of value to change the employment agreement?

This says nothing of the issue of "quasi-public" parking lots.

This notwithstanding, I stick by my original post. Additionally:

It seems that a company cannot make the rule that no one can park in their parking lot while in possession of a firearm. They are, after all, a commercial entity requiring at least some employees on the premises. So it doesn't matter who works for them, or how many, they'd have to be unarmed. So the whole country would have to be unarmed. This is the RKBA infringement. So, although the point is insanely obvious and straightforward, for this reason it's not enough to say "if you don't like it, go work somewhere else". Because SOMEONE has to work there, and WE ALL have the right to be armed.

This is different than what I have a right to expect at my home (but only inasmuch as I don't have to allow anyone to visit); i.e., you can't visit if you're armed. I don't have to allow anyone on my property (that I know of). But if I do allow you to visit, I have to allow you to be armed (or have a firearm in your vehicle in my driveway, etc.), I have to allow you the right to free speech, and allow you all your other rights. The employers have to allow SOMEONE on the property, otherwise they board up the business and go home. This is the same idea as "if you hold yourself open to serve the public, you cannot discriminate". You may reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, but the reasons for refusal are limited.

1x2

 

[mons meg]

However the contract says that you cannot have it in your car on their property. That is the deal. If you want to keep it in your car thats fine just stay off of their property.

The new Oklahoma law in essence makes it illegal for an employer to adopt such policies. Oklahoma is an "at will" employment state, so formal employment contracts are usually only seen in union shops.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Robert Hairless: There are no real NO IRISH NEED APPLY signs.

I just wanted to point out a common urban legend.

Thanks for that good information, Tecumseh. It apparently was a common urban legend in the 1860s too. Odd how some of these urban legends seem to persist.

​

 

[1x2]

Twitchalot wrote:

First of all, the Bill of Rights, again, applies to the federal and state governments. Second of all, if you choose to enter my property, you forfeit those rights. If I choose to let you on my property, I should be able to kick you out at any time. It may be because you put butter on your bread. It may be because you have a gun. It may be because I don’t like your haircut. I shouldn’t need a reason. It is my property, and I may do with it as I wish (again, provided that I don’t infringe upon the rights of others). If you choose to be there, then you choose to accept my rules. If you don’t like them, you can leave.

First of all the Bill of Rights doesn't just apply to the federal and state governments. What do you mean? It doesn't apply to the people? Second, people don't forfeit any rights on private property. Doesn't mean that they can play soccer on the neighbor's lawn, but people don't have a right to play soccer. We agree that a property owner can lawfully ask any person to leave their property. You state further that "again, provided that I don't infringe upon the rights of others". So I think we're in agreement. An invitee may accept a property owner's rules, but may not. It depends on the rule. Same with employment, in spades. Employees don't have to cheat, lie, steal, perjure, any numbe of things. Further, a contract (this was alluded to above, somewhere) wherein a party agrees to relinquish their constitutional rights is invalid with respect to that clause; it simply won't be upheld. This was reiterated for the umpteenth time with respect to employee compensation rights within the last month or so.

1x2

 

[Robert Hairless]

mons meg:

Can we drift this thread back to the original topic? Not that it's not entertaining to watch y'all, but I think most people here are not addressing my earlier point. To paraphrase myself, the Oklahoma Legislature passed a law which is apparently consistent with the Oklahoma Constitution, as no Oklahoma court has ruled against it in the past 3 years or so we've been having this fight.

Now we have a federal court that has issued a permanent injunction not based on a property rights argument, but on a safety argument, thus nullifying the will of the Legislature (and thereby People) of the State of Oklahoma with the stroke of a pen.

One can argue that property rights are implicitly protected by the Constitution via the 3rd and 9th Amendments, but self defense, it can be easily argued, is explicitly protected by the 2nd. Oklahoma tried to extend this right to one's own vehicle, and many folks want to be outraged at the violation of the sanctity of the property rights of an artificial legal construct, i.e. the Conocophillips corporation.

Another way to look at this...I don't see this as being any different that a company saying, "This is a non-smoking facility, so you can't have a pack of cigarettes in your car on company property". Both the pack of cigarettes and the firearm are legal, private possessions being left in the car. The building may be non smoking, but I don't see how they would have any say over what LEGAL items I keep in my car.

I think, but I'm not sure, that the people who have been arguing for employer's rights, property rights, and business rights have been addressing the issue you've raised. I raised it too a while back. The overwhelming argument here, though, is that the Second Amendment and the Oklahoma constitution and the Oklahoma legislature and the Oklahoma law are all trumped by OSHA regulations as interpreted by the employers, property owners, and businesses.

So, as I remarked earlier with awe and wonder, although the Second Amendment recognizes the pre-existence of the people's right to keep and bear arms, and although it prohibits the federal government from infringing upon that right, the federal judge has ruled that an agency of the federal government can do so.

By similar logic someone who shoots another person might argue for dismissal of all charges because the crime was committed by his finger when it pulled the trigger. The judge's logic apparently is based on a perception that what is prohibited to the entire body is allowed to one of its parts.

It's a small step from there to arguing the employer's right to have any reason or no reason at all for controlling employees, on the job or off the job, in the meantime and in between time. You slipped into that connection in the concluding paragraph of your message. It's an easy slip.

With the logic being pursued by others in this thread, it's an even easier step to the employer's (or business's or property owner's) right to prohibit you from having cigarettes in your car. It's not even necessary for smoking to have been banned in the building. The way they can do it is just to do it. Our friends here argue adamantly that it's okay for them to do it. They have rights. You, alas, don't have rights because you lose them by virtue of your employment. The federal judge's interpretation of OSHA will support the employer's decision: it's the employer's decision to make--not yours, because you don't have rights equal to the employer's--and everyone knows that cigarettes are dangerous. So you lose.

Loud noises are a danger in the workplace too, so the employer probably can prevail in banning your Hip Hop recordings, your labor union songs (I doubt that anyone here has even heard of "Solidarity Forever"), and even your audio playback devices if he so chooses.

You name it, the employer can prohibit it. Oklahoma's constitution, legislature, laws, and government cannot prevail now against the employer and OSHA in that circuit. You are de facto now a citizen of OSHA and a creature of your employer, and/or the own of the property you enter, and/or the business you patronize. You be, in other words, that ideal participant in a business transaction carried on by mutual consent: an object, nearly a slave, unless you are the owner.

Forget the Second Amendment. It no longer exists in Oklahoma. When one right goes, others are sure to follow. But it's all good, assert our Libertarian friends, because the Constitution and laws interfere with natural liberties and rights. They're thinkers. We've even got some guys here arguing that slaveholders have been wronged because they didn't consent to the Thirteenth Amendment or to state anti-peonage laws. Ah, for the good old days when the plantation owner could whup them slaves, or hang them, or sell them off--none of which was ever done, argue our friends, because that wouldn't have been profitable so it didn't happen and all the slaves hung around the plantation because they wanted to be there picking a little cotton to break up the infernal boredom of idling around all day. Since the slaves wanted to be slaves and the slaveowners were willing to indulge them, everybody was happy until Mr. Lincoln screwed it all up.

 

[Owens]

I still maintain that the OSHA thing is mis-applied. The workers are not working in the parking lot. Inside the building (read as off the parking lot) is where OSHA applies. So, with that perspective, the judge is obviously in error and the decision is wrong. Maybe there's legal grounds in that, I don't know. I'm no lawyer, just my take on it.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Owen, I agree.

 

[mons meg]

My head hurts from all this thinking. Can we just blow a raspberry at the judge already and tell him to Sit on It, Potsie?

 

[roo_ster]

It is threads such as these where the chasm between doctrinaire libertarianism and the ideas written into the COTUS & BOR (to include federalism) is most visible.

Subjects such as this are part of the reason I no longer consider myslef a libertarian (of the L or l type). I am content with "constitutionalist," "federalist," or some such pigeon hole.

 

[glummer]

The judge is a bigot

likely a breach of OSHA's general duty clause if a company does not ban guns from its premises . . . because guns can be easily retrieved from such areas by disgruntled employees

Factually false: unless there is airport-style screening, disgruntled employees can STILL bring guns in – the ban in question affects only the rule-abiding (i.e., non-dangerous) and therefore has no relevance to diminishing risk.

the Court is convinced the OSH Act's general duty clause extends to potential dangers posed by unauthorized firearms on company property and, specifically, the danger of workplace violence committed against employees

There is no evidence that firearms covered by the law in question have any bearing whatever on the danger of workplace violence (except, perhaps, to deter it.) The judge is injecting his own bigoted paranoid fantasies into the law.

eliminating unauthorized firearms on company premises - is a logical and effective means of complying with the OSH Act.

Factually false: the bans in question do NOT “eliminate unauthorized firearms” – they only eliminate SOME of them – and NOT the dangerous ones. This is neither logical, nor effective.

Notably these policies are not overbroad or irrational attempts to comply with the OSH Act. . .

These policies are, in fact, pure bigotry, and totally irrational (with respect to workplace safety – with respect to the goals of the bigots, of course, they are highly rational.)

The [OK laws] criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot coexist with federal obligations and objectives.

Again, the judge makes assertions with no factual evidence – it is not within the notice of the court that this is an effective method of reducing injuries.

Does anyone know if a judge can be sued for violating civil rights “under color of law?” That seems to me to be clearly what he is doing here.
Imagine an employer who refused to hire black men, and claimed it was in order to protect the safety of white women employees. That is essentially the line of argument the judge is accepting/inventing.

 

[glummer]

jfruser

It is threads such as these where the chasm between doctrinaire libertarianism and the ideas written into the COTUS & BOR (to include federalism) is most visible.

I’m afraid you’re right. Until purist libertarians can come up with a way of dealing with the world AS IT IS that is both principled AND practical, they are just arguing about angels & pinheads. Employers (and property) were regulated before I was born, and will be regulated long after I’m gone. Is there nothing I can do to improve the ACTUAL situation, other than to sit in the corner and say “bad on you – don’t do that?”

 

[TwitchALot]

In this discussion, as in many others on THR, the idea is often put forward that a person does not have a "right" to work or earn a living -- yet the idea that a person suddenly has the "right" to have a business and employees remains unquestioned. I would submit the idea that if one would want a business and/or the opportunity to hire employees, then one must give up some of their rights in regards to their property and their own "unlimited" right to contract.

I’m not sure who you are talking about, but I don’t believe that a person has a right to work or earn a living. In fact, “earning” and “right” are conflicting viewpoints in itself. If you have a right to something, then you need not earn it. Neither do I believe that a person has the right to have a business and employees.

People should certainly have the right to start a business and hire employees, however. And they certainly should be allowed to work. But they certainly don’t have the right to.

Face it. Government exists to provide protections to the most rights for the most people. It has been recognized in our history that there rarely, if ever, was a time when employees had a level playing field with employers. Employees enacted laws through government to help that relationship. It's imperfect, but that's what we have.

I’ll get to this “level-playing field” below.

Yup, you missed something. The rest of us are talking about how things are as the result of a federal judge's decision in a specific case. It doesn't seem hard to read the titles on message threads.

I couldn't figure out what in the world you have been talking about so I'm glad you've just explained that you are talking about the way things are and the implications of that but about "how things should be" according to you. I don't know whose turn it is to set the rules for the rest of the world to follow but I'm sure that you're pretty far down on the list. It's not polite to cut ahead in the line of those waiting to become Ruler of the Universe.

Your explanation does help me understand why you seem to know so much, though, and why so much of that is distorted as if you were seeing the world reflected in a fun house mirror.

Ah. You haven’t been reading my posts. No wonder you’re confused. It’s hard to figure out what I’m talking about when you don’t read my posts. Try that first, and THEN debate with me. And just so we’re clear, I already said that I’m talking about the principles at stake here, which IMO, is far more important than any single case (which is, oddly enough, based on these principles). Obviously if you guys want to talk about the case in particular, go ahead and do so. I’m going a bit deeper.

For example, your argument that all employers should be free to discriminate solely on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age, and gender if that's what they want to do describes what you want this country to be like. A lot of the rest of us worked hard for a lot of years to fight against such discrimination and the people who advocate it. Your position, that employees who don't like it can and should go elsewhere, ignores the tragic consequences of such attitudes in the history of this country and others.

Find where I said that. Had you actually read my post, you would have realized, for example, that I said, “The U.S. Postal Service is not a private organization. As such, it has no power to make discriminatory policies (it shouldn’t, anyway) or other policies that are unfair to any given group of people. At the same time, it should give no advantages to certain groups of people.” How can you expect to have any sort of argument or valid criticism against my position when it’s clear you have no idea what my position is?

I never said, as above, all employers should be free to discriminate solely on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age, and gender. I argued, rather, that private employers should have the right to “discriminate” for any reason they want (or for no reason at all).

If they don’t want to hire a convicted serial rapist and murderer because of that fact, they shouldn’t have to. Is that discriminatory toward convicted serial rapists and murderer’s? You’re damn right it is. But you, and others, wouldn’t complain about that discrimination. Because the only discrimination that matters to you guys is the discrimination YOU don’t like (not necessarily just you). As I keep saying, and as everyone keeps ignoring, does everyone have the right to enter your home whenever they feel like it? Your private property? If not, why is it you essentially advocate that the private property of others is less valuable? You have the right to decide who enters your private property, but the guy who owns a business has no right to decide who enters his private property? And you guys try to pass that off as “right” and “Constitutional”? Give me a break.

Private property is private property, and despite what anyone else thinks, your private property is no more important than someone else’s (and I don’t mean monetarily). You guys, myself included, are no less discriminatory than racists. The racist won’t let someone in his home because he doesn’t like the color of his skin. You won’t let a stranger in your home because you don’t know the person. The only difference is the arbitrary criteria we use.

Both are again, arbitrary reasons for not letting someone on your private property. And yet, some of you feel like you’re so important, or that your arbitrary decision is so good, that you believe people should only be able to discriminate against people you would discriminate against. “Oh, it’s okay if you want to discriminate against strangers, because I wouldn’t let a stranger in my home.” “Oh, it’s okay if you want to discriminate against murderers, because I wouldn’t let one in my home.”

”But you have no right to discriminate against people with guns and stop them from entering your home. You have no right to discriminate against people who have a different skin color and stop them from entering your home.” And then, you’d actually go so far as to impose laws against such “discrimination,” despite the fact that you’re just as guilty of discrimination. Your reason for discriminating may be different, but it’s just as arbitrary.

What you think works? It didn't and doesn't and won't and can't. The only kind of history that supports what you advocate as "how things should be" is the history you distort to support your bizarre vision of an ideal social order. It's a society in which the strong exploit the weak because they can do it and have some right to do it. You make the Constitution and Bill of Rights irrelevant because you are The Law. Although that might be "how things should be" in your view, it's not how things are or how they will be.

Okay, show me where anyone (Founding Fathers, anyone back in that day) intended the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be a limit on individual power. I dare you. The truth is that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and you trying to pretend you do won’t help, because I actually do know what I’m talking about. The Constitution is a limit on government. Not individuals. But like I said- if you believe that’s incorrect, and that I’m actually distorting the Constitution, go ahead and bring forth the evidence to support your claim. Otherwise, drop it.

As soon as the people who have been agreeing with your twisted sophistry recognize where it leads and how it must affect them, at least some of them will see that you've distorted things to support your argument and get some insight into how you do it. You're not good at it.

I’m distorting nothing- you haven’t been reading much of what I’ve been saying, so it’s understandable (though I’m not sympathetic) that you are completely baffled and confused about my position (and history, apparently). It is you in fact, who have thought little of your position. You don’t even realize you discriminate against people, or you refuse to accept it. Yet, you’re so eager to stop others from doing the same.

How someone could possibly interpret the Constitution to apply to individuals is beyond me. Where did you get that idea, by the way?

In your distorted view of what I said about racial discrimination based on employers' views that some races commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes, for example, you say: "And if that employee is actually good at what they do, those who make policies that scare away such employees will pay for it." But in fact those employers did not "pay for it" from whatever time racial discrimination was introduced into the world. Employees and those who needed employment in order to survive paid for it.

First of all, I’d like to remind you that it was government that enslaved African American’s in the first place, and it was government that allowed it to continue to happen. This naturally put them at a disadvantage, artificially. In my world, the government would have no right to enslave people, nor would it have the right to protect those who tried to enslave other people. If anything, they would have an obligation to ensure that it didn’t happen, because of course, it’s against all notions of liberty and a free society. Employers did pay for discrimination, if it so happens that such people were better than the people the employers hired. It is an economic reality. If you hire someone because they are white, but they suck at their job, and the employer next to you hires someone because they are good at their job (even if they’re black), they will have an economic advantage over you. Those who make economic decisions on non-economic factors pay for it, one way or another.

Your assertions are based on some whacky notion that there is a level playing field between those who pay people and those who need that pay for survival. That kind of level playing field does exist from time to time in some specific situations but it's uncommon and temporary, and usually it's a phenomenon in specialized occupations. The real marketplace--not the one in your head--is one in which a shortage of skilled employees in some occupation becomes known and quickly turns into a surplus. Employers publicize such situations.

My assertions are nothing of the sort. In fact, if you knew anything about the free market, libertarianism, or my position in the first place, you would know that my belief is that the playing field is never level. You are actually confused- you are the one trying to “level” the playing field by imposing restrictions on employers. But let me get back to that level playing field.

Even if all of the wealth in the world were equally distributed amongst everyone, very shortly after, those who make good decisions with that wealth will have more wealth, those who make bad decisions will have less wealth. There is never a level playing field, and even if government were to impose one, it wouldn’t stay that way for very long (unless the government had complete control over everyone’s actions). And quite frankly, no one, let alone government, should have the right to impose a level playing field. It is against all notions and precepts of liberty and freedom.


If I’m trying to apply to law school, and I’m a highly qualified candidate, according to you guys, the bum on the street should get in just as much as I should. It should be a “level playing field.” But in truth, and in reality, none of you really believe what you’re spouting at me. You believe that if you’re a better candidate for a job than the guy next to you, you should get the job. The employer shouldn’t flip a coin and see who called it.

It’s rather absurd that I would be accused of assuming a “level playing field” when my belief system is that there isn’t one, and no one should have the right to impose one. Those who want government to interfere in such affairs are the ones who want level playing fields. They’re the ones who go, “employers aren’t paying their workers enough, so we should increase the minimum wage.” Sound familiar?

The reason the “playing field” is never level is because there are people who make good decisions, and people who make bad decisions. Some people are naturally better at things, some are not. Some people work hard, some people slack off.

What government assistance programs and economic restrictions do is try to remedy that (they do a bad job most of the time, but let’s ignore that for a moment). They try to take from those who earn it and give it to those who didn’t. Maybe such people are crippled, or they are just downright lazy. It doesn’t matter- if you want to help such people, that should be your choice. Donate money, spend some time at shelter volunteering. But don’t take MY money, or try to force me to do the same.

What surprises and saddens me is that many people today forget their roots and the lessons of history.

Considering your lack of understanding of history (or least ours and the Constitution in the first place), I don’t believe you’re quite qualified to make that statement.

Although Ayn Rand's notions of laissez faire capitalism make for a few minutes of interesting conversation when there is nothing better to do with the time, a society conceived as nothing more than a pit in which only the fit can survive is never more than a pit. In a previous message I mentioned the high school sophomore, and it was for the reason that such notions are essentially sophomoric with little regard for either the lessons of history or the obligations of humanity.

That is exactly how it should be. Those who are not fit should not be forcibly propped up at the expense of those who can sustain themselves.

In your world, everyone should be forced to pay for such people (I’ll talk about that in a bit). In my world, if you feel the desire to help such people, you may do so. But you wouldn’t be able to force everyone else to follow your ideals.

You keep talking about “my world.” “My world” is one where YOU get to choose what YOUR world is like. Sounds horrible, I know, because it’d be real nice if the world could be the way that one person wanted it to be.

Now let me talk about people who are not “fit.”

Suppose I don’t want to work. I don’t want to go to school, I don’t want to do anything except eat and drink. It seems like in your world, the government should help such people. In my world, such people would certainly not survive without the gratuitous assistance of private citizens like yourself.

Now I understand you don’t recognize the real difference between those situations, as it pertains to liberty and freedom, so let me try to make that very clear. In the first situation, everyone is forced to give to the needy. In the second situation, only those who want to give give to the needy. Suppose I work 40 hours a week, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. You take one day’s worth of money in taxes and give it to the needy.

What right do you have to take away my day of work, essentially my life? Do you think I couldn’t have been having fun for those eight hours? Why should I be forced to give up, essentially, a part of my life, to satisfy your ideal? What you essentially propose is nothing short of an authoritarianistic government (couldn’t find a better word). Do not try to tell us you are a proponent of freedom, because you’re not. You are only a proponent of freedom if you like the freedom. Everyone should, in your world, be free to do as they wish unless you don’t like it. Then it’s time to impose government restrictions on them and take their freedom away, because you believe that everyone should give to the poor and help the needy. Let me tell you something- that is not freedom.

And again, you’ve failed to address any real argument of mine, while asserting you understand my position (when it’s clear you haven’t even read what I’ve been saying, for the most part).

And just so we’re clear, that is exactly what you advocate. You may not directly say it, and you may not admit it, but it is the direct consequence of your logic, whether you realize it or not.

 

[TwitchALot]

Your attempts to compare a person's home with a business are just silly. Sensible people, even judges and lawmakers, know the difference. You can too if you try real hard.

Your attempts to fool me into believing you believe in freedom are absurd. It’s clear you have no understanding of my position (as I’ve demonstrated), yet you insist on arguing with it. Private property, in my opinion, is private property. Who owns it, and what they use it for is largely irrelevant. If I want to rent out rooms in my home to make money, you shouldn’t have any right to decide who gets to stay in my house. You shouldn’t have any right to tell me I have to let one black person, one white person, one Asian person, and one Hispanic person stay there.

For those of you who claim there is an absolute property right to suspend the second amendment, do you claim there is an equal absolute property right to suspend the fourth amendment: that it is legal for a property owner to summarily charge/try/convict and execute one?

Who believes that there is an absolute property right to suspend the Second Amendment? Certainly not Outlaw or myself.

Second, how can you claim it is about property rights, and use OSHA as the basis of the ruling? Oh wait.. hypocrit again.

I didn’t use the OSHA as a basis for the ruling and claim that it is about property rights. I doubt Outlaw did either. Who exactly are you referring to?

I think that one goal of a society determined to be functional should be to accommodate as many of its people as possible when determining boundaries

Kind of like how African Americans are property, right? And as such, have no rights?

But it's probably always wrong for an employer to set rules that deny employees the means to defend their lives when they are not on the clock. Overreaching is overreaching. The manager of an opera company does and should have the right to prohibit chorus members from playing rap CDs on stage during a performance of Carmen. That same employer should not have the right to prohibit those same employees from bopping away in their own vehicles while driving to and from the job, or from having rap CDs in their vehicles while parked: such a rule exercises overreaching control over the employees' private lives, and the inevitable consequence of one such rule is that it allows the employer to extend increasing control over the employee.

If they stipulate you may not have firearms in your vehicle in you park on their lot, and you park on their lot, you have no right to park on their lot in the first place. They did not give you permission to do so. If I say, you can’t come on my private property until you take your shoes off, and you don’t take your shoes off, you have no right to be on my property. No property owner has the right to infringe upon your rights. But YOU do not have the right to infringe on his.

Which is, in essence, what you guys are proposing. Employers are not infringing upon your right to keep and bear arms and defend yourself if they say, “you cannot park in my lot if you have a gun in the car.” If you choose to park there, you FORFEIT your right to keep a gun in the car. Voluntarily. So don’t do it.

He can’t take your gun, or search your vehicle (unless those were also terms to parking, and you’d be an idiot for agreeing to such terms if that were the case), but he can get it towed or something like that.

It is a complex set of transactions in which the essential element is that the employee leases part of his life to the employer for the performance of a reasonably related set of duties in return for compensation. Employers--no matter how stridently anyone argues for their absolute rights over employees--have no reasonable right to determine what employees think while on the job, how they spend their earnings, who they marry, or any other aspect of their private lives.

For once, I agree. But then, why do you think the government has that right? No one, again, is arguing that employers have absolute rights over employees. They don’t. But you don’t have absolute rights over employers. If you forfeit your rights voluntarily, then you lose those rights to your employer. So if you don’t want to lose your rights, don’t forfeit them in the first place. Their place, their rules. Abide by them, or don’t go to their place.

Employers who might take it into their heads to require young women to go topless on a factory line or young men to have their zippers open in an office are out of order, even if OSHA rules that some blouses can be dangerous near some machines or that some zippers can become magnetized and cause paper clips to fly through the air. OSHA might think it is God but delusion and self delusion should not go unchallenged.

Why would you work for such an organization, then (not you in particular)? I was looking for a job a while back, and I found one at my local Target. They offered $7.25 an hour. I decided not to work there because I didn’t believe it was worth my time.

The notion of an employer's right to determine what an employee can or can't have in his own vehicle on a parking lot is a ruse. Its purpose is backdoor gun control.

First of all, if you agree to the stipulations for using the parking lot, you voluntarily forfeit your rights. And whose fault is that but your own? Second of all, if I say, “no guns in my house,” is that backdoor gun control to you? It’s my private property, I should have the right to determine what goes on it. If you disagree, address my earlier arguments. Why shouldn’t I be able to walk in your home whenever I want? Why shouldn’t I be able to use your guns without your permission? Should I be allowed to park my car and my friends car on your driveway?

You guys still don’t get it. An employer that says you cannot park on his property if your car has a firearm in it is not restricting your freedom. You CHOOSE to forfeit that freedom in exchange for having convenient parking. And if you choose to forfeit them for the convenience of parking closer, or whatever it may be, instead of parking somewhere else, you’re not in any position to complain about losing them. The employer didn’t take your rights. You gave them up.

That purpose becomes clearer when the argument extends to some right of property owners to control the lives of customers and visitors by expanding such a prohibition to them too. Someone who stops for lunch in a Waffle House doesn't become the plaything of the business owner because she parked in its lot. Who in his right mind would argue that Waffle House has some right to search all cars parked there or to have gunpowder sniffing dogs inspect them, or to frisk people who have entered the restaurant?

By going to this Waffle House, she implicitly agreed to its rules. The Waffle House has no right to search all cars parked there (unless they stipulated that beforehand as a condition to parking there). But then, you have no right to park there without their permission, either. Again, if you forfeit your rights for something, that is your fault.


And so far as strawmanning you, RH, I haven’t strawmanned you- all I’ve done is apply your principles consistently. I didn’t make exceptions here and there when I felt like it like you did. For example, you keep talking about freedom. The only problem is you make exceptions whenever you feel like it (arbitrary ones)- case in point, discrimination.

So with gasoline being a highly flammable liquid and in large concentrations very dangerous I think the government should limit how much gasloine an employer may allow his employees to have in possesion inside their vehicles on company property. I think anything more than 1/2 pint should be grounds for dismisal. Any more than that might be used for molotov cocktails should an employee suddenly become disgruntled, he/she might go out to their car and drain enough fuel out to ignite the entire workforce!

Okay, I’m going to try to clear this up because apparently, quite a few people are still confused.

The employer has no right to regulate what you do with your property. He cannot force you to not have a gun in your car. But you do not have a right to regulate HIS property. If he says, you can’t bring a car with a firearm in it on my property, he has every right to do so. He can’t take it out of your car if you do (unless you agreed to that prior), but can certainly tow your car if he discovers you have a firearm for trespassing. You have no right to be there. You guys seem to be under the impression that Outlaw and I are arguing that the private property rights of business owners trump your private property rights. They don’t. And your rights don’t trump theirs.

If they don’t want guns on their property, they have a right to make that decision, just as much as you have a right to choose to have guns on your property. You can’t infringe on their property any more than they can infringe on yours. If you agree to use their property, you agree to their rules. Again- if you don’t want them to infringe on your rights, don’t forfeit them in the first place.

That, for you, is among what defines "real freedom" and is the highest aspiration for Americans. "Real freedom," in your highly principled world, includes the freedom of business owners, property owners, and employers to discriminate against any group of people they choose.

Yes it does. They should be allowed to practice the same discrimination YOU do. All of you guys practice discrimination. I do too. The difference is that I’m willing to admit it, and I’m willing to respect the rights of others to do the same. You don’t. Only discrimination you like and do is okay, arbitrary as it may be. It’s okay to discriminate against strangers and people you don’t like. But it’s not okay for others to do the same. Don’t try to play that off as freedom.

Maybe you don’t believe that’s true, but it is the logical consequence of your statements. It’s wrong to discriminate based on race (in so far as you’re concerned), but it’s okay to discriminate based on relationship status (unless you let strangers in your home whenever they feel like it). You discriminate against strangers, arbitrarily, racists discriminate against the race they dislike, arbitrarily. Yet you feel like you have a right to prevent him for discriminating in the same way you are- arbitrarily.

If you are black, you support the department's right to refuse to hire black officers or to promote any black men who were hired, regardless of their merits. If you are white, you support the right of the department to hire and promote black officers based only on their race.

No matter what your race, you affirm the right of a police department to make assignments on a racial basis. If dangerous assignments go to exclusively to black officers and cushy jobs go exclusively to whites, that's good with you, and you would not protest. Or if the reverse were true--only white officers get the smelly old cars that break down and only black officers get the new ones--that's good too. A department that provides body armor on the basis of race or religion has the absolute right to do so in your belief system, and you wouldn't protest if you either got none or got the old Second Chance Zylon vests while officers of other races or religions, or whose parents came from some favored country got armor that actually worked. That's admirable.[/QUOTE]

Wrong.

And, of course, as a principled person who cherishes the freedom of employers to do as they wish, you do not belong to a union and would not allow its interference with your employer's right to do to you whatever it wishes. You most certainly would not complain if your employer violated any law designed to protect employees: you support your employer's right to ignore any pay scale, for example, so if you were paid less than your grade required you would defend that situation. That's principled.

Wrong. Employers do not have the right to do what they wish (nor should they). They should have the same rights YOU have, no more, no less. Employers here, in principle, are not infringing upon your rights. You are giving them up in exchange for something, temporary as it may be, and you’re complaining about it. If you don’t like it, don’t forfeit your rights in the first place.

It’s readily apparent that your definition of principled is that the rules apply to everyone except you. You can practice discrimination, but others can’t (you generally speaking). Now, some people here will argue with that. “TwitchALot, stop lying and strawmanning. I don’t practice discrimination.”

You don’t? You let anyone and everyone into your home and your car? Anyone and everyone can take your lunch at work if they so desire? No, you all practice discrimination. I practice discrimination too. It just so happens that you guys believe it’s only okay for the groups you feel like discriminating against (strangers, and the like), but it’s not okay for groups that you believe shouldn’t be discriminated against. And you’re willing to force your view on other people.

Now that it's out, the good folks who have been supporting what has been called "employer's rights," "business owner's rights," and "property owner's rights" can take a look at the real face behind the mask. If they still want to argue for the vile and terrible they can't hide what they're doing or fool themselves about what it really is.

We argue for the freedom and liberty to make decisions for oneself. We don’t, like others here, feel so superior that we believe our opinions about given matters are correct and should be forced on other people.

You believe that the targets of racial, religious, gender, and age discrimination in business transactions consent to it.

They do. How are you supposed to argue otherwise? If I put up a sign in my store that says, “soda: $1.15 for whites, $2.30 for others of non-Caucasian descent,” and someone who isn’t white pays $2.30, voluntarily, how is he not consenting to paying?

In your view women are happy to be paid less than men for doing the same work and are content to be passed over for promotion in favor of men. In the real world, though, they fight it. You want laws against gender discrimination repealed so that women are once again free to consent to being discriminated against.

They may not be happy about it, but they certainly accept it, voluntarily. I’m not happy about going to school, because quite frankly, it sucks. But I accept it voluntarily. I choose to do it.

You want laws against age discrimination repealed so men and women over a certain age can once again have the right to be fired.

Of course you want people of the "wrong" color to have restoration of their rights to live in shanties, be denied admission to hospitals, barred from lunch counters, turned away from hotels, locked out of public rest rooms, and pay more for goods and food than other people.

No, we don’t. We just want to give people the right to control what they do with their private property, their private business, and their private lives. I don’t believe in discrimination. I’m not racist. But then, I’m not going to force other people to follow my opinions, unlike you.

You don't see that the essence of discrimination is that it denies people the capability for mutual consent in a business transaction.

That’s absolutely absurd. If you know what a “mutual transaction” is in the first place, you would know that it doesn’t have to be a “fair” transaction to be mutual. Let me give you an example of that.

High quality ammunition is more expensive than lower quality ammunition. Do you think the people who sell ammunition sell it at a price that is exactly equal to the cost of the product? In other words, if it costs, say, 25 cents per round to get the materials, make it, and distribute it, do you think stores that sell ammunition sell it for 25 cents?

Undoubtedly, using your logic, you think the answer is yes. It’s not fair, you cry! But if you go and buy that ammunition, voluntarily, it is perfectly fair. No one is forcing you to buy it. You buy it because you think the extra quality is worth the price. You buy it because you think the benefits of buying such ammo is greater than the cost of the ammo (otherwise, you wouldn’t buy it without being forced to).

Guy on the other side of the counter is voluntarily selling at that price. He wants to sell his product at that price (short out any outside interference, again). Both of you think you are benefiting from the deal, so you make the trade.

Now it’s not “fair” that the guy selling the ammo is not selling it for the exact price it costs him. He wants to benefit from an exchange. So do you. But that doesn’t mean you didn’t, or can’t, mutually consent to the trade.

A trade does not have to be “fair” in any respect for it to be a mutual one. This is readily obvious to anyone who thinks about the matter for even a second. Items of sentimental value, for example, may not be worth that much on the market. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth a lot to you. Transactions are only fair if both parties agree to it without any coercion. They don’t need to be “fair” in any other respect for mutual consent.

 

[TwitchALot]

In fact that's one of the major problems created by discrimination--that it does not allow for mutual consent in any transaction in which it comes into play.

This has been established to be wrong, but let me give you another example. My local LEO decides to lawfully sell his fully-automatic MP5. He charges me 100,000 dollars, and I accept it (because I want one really badly) and do all that stuff and get the MP5.

Now was that fair? It sure as hell doesn’t cost that much to make one. Getting one from someone else, while difficult, probably isn’t as expensive. So in your strange world, it wouldn’t be a fair trade. It wouldn’t be a trade that was the result of mutual consent.

But you’re absolutely wrong. I agreed to pay the price, he agreed to sell for that price, and it was a mutually agreeable trade.

What you don't get is that laws against discrimination (the ones you think damage the mutual consent required for a business transaction) exist because the people who were objects of that discrimination did not consent to it and fought to have it stopped.

They didn’t like being discriminated. That doesn’t mean they didn’t consent to any trades or transactions that were discriminatory.

Discrimination never arises out of mutual consent. That's why it is discrimination.

Wrong, but I already explained that.

Gun owners, at least many of those here, are different. They like being discriminated against and they want businesses to have a right to discriminate against them.

Wrong.

So when employers deny a right to their employees and the employees consent to that denial and defend it, the employees no longer have that right and it's okay.

Employees no longer have that right so long as they are obeying the terms of the agreement. And yes, that is right. They voluntarily traded one thing for another. There is nothing wrong with that.

If I give you five dollars for a box of ammo, and you agree to give me that box of ammo (without being coerced) for five dollars, there is nothing wrong with that. The box of ammunition may have cost more than five dollars, but you agreed to the trade. And there is nothing wrong with that. You certainly shouldn’t have the right to force other people to sell their ammunition for more money (which is what you are essentially arguing), that’s for sure.

In this instance, then, both the Second Amendment that acknowledged the employees' right and the Oklahoma law that guaranteed it within the state are of course wrong. When both employers and employees mutually consent to the denial of the employees' rights, both the Oklahoma law and the Second Amendment should be rendered ineffective. There's your mutual consent.

This is a fine example of appeal to ridicule.

Another way to look at this...I don't see this as being any different that a company saying, "This is a non-smoking facility, so you can't have a pack of cigarettes in your car on company property". Both the pack of cigarettes and the firearm are legal, private possessions being left in the car. The building may be non smoking, but I don't see how they would have any say over what LEGAL items I keep in my car.

They have no right to say what items you keep in your car. They DO have a right to say whether you can park your car on their property (well, they should). If they stipulate that no one can park there if they have cigarettes in the vehicle, they should be free to do so. They can’t remove it from your vehicle (unless you agreed to it), but they should certainly be able to get it towed for trespassing.

Totally as an aside, if one were to make the argument that a prohibition of firearms in my vehicle results in loss of value (safety), doesn't the company have to give me something of value to change the employment agreement?

Unless the employer stipulated that they may change their rules at any time without notice, and you are responsible for obeying such rules, they cannot change the contract you originally signed (they shouldn’t be able to, again).

For example, if you sign a contract with an employer that says you’ll work X hours a week for Y dollars an hour and all that other stuff, but it doesn’t say that the employer has the right to change the rules of the contract without your consent, he cannot add a rule… without your consent. But if he does have a clause like that, and you agree to it, that’s no one’s fault but your own.

If someone wanted to hire me to work in their store and they said they wouldn’t pay me, I wouldn’t work there. But if I agree to work there, and I don’t get paid, who am I to complain about not being paid?

This is different than what I have a right to expect at my home (but only inasmuch as I don't have to allow anyone to visit); i.e., you can't visit if you're armed. I don't have to allow anyone on my property (that I know of). But if I do allow you to visit, I have to allow you to be armed (or have a firearm in your vehicle in my driveway, etc.), I have to allow you the right to free speech, and allow you all your other rights. The employers have to allow SOMEONE on the property, otherwise they board up the business and go home. This is the same idea as "if you hold yourself open to serve the public, you cannot discriminate". You may reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, but the reasons for refusal are limited.

That’s a preposterous argument. How can you possibly justify this? The First Amendment states that we have a right to peaceably assemble. Using your argument, why can you deny that right, but then be forced to allow all others? It’s logically unjustifiable, and consequently, completely arbitrary.

If I own a business, and I don’t feel like running it anymore, I should have the right to fire my employees, board up, and go home.

First of all the Bill of Rights doesn't just apply to the federal and state governments. What do you mean? It doesn't apply to the people?

Ah yes. That was vague, so I’ll clear that up.

Here’s “how” and “who” the Bill of Rights, in reality, applies to.

With regards to restrictions: It applies to government.
With regards to freedom: It applies to the people.

It does NOT restrict the rights of the people.

Second, people don't forfeit any rights on private property. Doesn't mean that they can play soccer on the neighbor's lawn, but people don't have a right to play soccer. We agree that a property owner can lawfully ask any person to leave their property. You state further that "again, provided that I don't infringe upon the rights of others". So I think we're in agreement. An invitee may accept a property owner's rules, but may not. It depends on the rule. Same with employment, in spades. Employees don't have to cheat, lie, steal, perjure, any numbe of things. Further, a contract (this was alluded to above, somewhere) wherein a party agrees to relinquish their constitutional rights is invalid with respect to that clause; it simply won't be upheld. This was reiterated for the umpteenth time with respect to employee compensation rights within the last month or so.

Yes, people do forfeit rights on private property. The rights they forfeit are the ones they agree to forfeit, as per the owners rules.

Why don’t I have the right to play soccer on my neighbor’s lawn? I have, according to your logic and the Bill of Rights, the right to peaceably assemble. You can argue that soccer is not a peaceful sport, and sometimes it isn’t, but if I’m just dribbling the ball on your lawn, that’s perfectly peaceable. Why don’t I have the right to do that?

You are correct in that bolded part. And that’s about it. It does not depend on the rule. If you don’t like one of the rules, don’t accept it in the first place! You are not being forced to be on that property. If you desire to be there, then you have an obligation to abide by the rules of the owner. He doesn’t have to let you on his property.

As far as the contract goes, it is not invalid with respect to anything. If I want to give you five dollars because I feel like it, should that be invalidated because I have a right to property, and I am giving you my property? Should I be barred from giving anyone anything because I have a right to property, and giving up that property would violate my rights (honestly, I don’t know how this makes sense to anyone)? You would have to say yes, or logically contradict your position. So why should that be the case?

Now as far as that last statement goes, I’m not particularly interested in that- I am interested in how the world should be. You can say that the microstamping bill passed in California, so it is right. But I will argue that it is not right, and it shouldn’t be that way. I’ll defend my position, of course, but the point is that if you want to focus on how things are, there’s no need to discuss that. Just point everyone who wants to talk about it to the nearest law book and say, “that’s how it is.”

It's a small step from there to arguing the employer's right to have any reason or no reason at all for controlling employees, on the job or off the job, in the meantime and in between time. You slipped into that connection in the concluding paragraph of your message. It's an easy slip.

With the logic being pursued by others in this thread, it's an even easier step to the employer's (or business's or property owner's) right to prohibit you from having cigarettes in your car. It's not even necessary for smoking to have been banned in the building. The way they can do it is just to do it. Our friends here argue adamantly that it's okay for them to do it. They have rights. You, alas, don't have rights because you lose them by virtue of your employment. The federal judge's interpretation of OSHA will support the employer's decision: it's the employer's decision to make--not yours, because you don't have rights equal to the employer's--and everyone knows that cigarettes are dangerous. So you lose.

No, it’s not a small step, provided you have any logic, reason, and evidence in your argument. Employers have no such right. They DO have a right to prohibit you from parking on their private property (if that is the case). Well, they should, anyway.

With the logic being pursued by others in this thread, it's an even easier step to the employer's (or business's or property owner's) right to prohibit you from having cigarettes in your car. It's not even necessary for smoking to have been banned in the building. The way they can do it is just to do it. Our friends here argue adamantly that it's okay for them to do it. They have rights. You, alas, don't have rights because you lose them by virtue of your employment. The federal judge's interpretation of OSHA will support the employer's decision: it's the employer's decision to make--not yours, because you don't have rights equal to the employer's--and everyone knows that cigarettes are dangerous. So you lose.

Loud noises are a danger in the workplace too, so the employer probably can prevail in banning your Hip Hop recordings, your labor union songs (I doubt that anyone here has even heard of "Solidarity Forever"), and even your audio playback devices if he so chooses.

You name it, the employer can prohibit it. Oklahoma's constitution, legislature, laws, and government cannot prevail now against the employer and OSHA in that circuit. You are de facto now a citizen of OSHA and a creature of your employer, and/or the own of the property you enter, and/or the business you patronize. You be, in other words, that ideal participant in a business transaction carried on by mutual consent: an object, nearly a slave, unless you are the owner.

The employer can prohibit anything. On THEIR property.

Forget the Second Amendment. It no longer exists in Oklahoma. When one right goes, others are sure to follow. But it's all good, assert our Libertarian friends, because the Constitution and laws interfere with natural liberties and rights. They're thinkers. We've even got some guys here arguing that slaveholders have been wronged because they didn't consent to the Thirteenth Amendment or to state anti-peonage laws. Ah, for the good old days when the plantation owner could whup them slaves, or hang them, or sell them off--none of which was ever done, argue our friends, because that wouldn't have been profitable so it didn't happen and all the slaves hung around the plantation because they wanted to be there picking a little cotton to break up the infernal boredom of idling around all day. Since the slaves wanted to be slaves and the slaveowners were willing to indulge them, everybody was happy until Mr. Lincoln screwed it all up.

Again, an excellent example of appeal to ridicule. You know nothing of the libertarian position. How can you possibly criticize it with any integrity?

And instead of just pointing out, again, where you did it, let me be more specific so that we’re clear. Libertarians do not argue slaverholders were wronged. In the libertarian world, people are not property, and people have rights. Short and sweet.

It is threads such as these where the chasm between doctrinaire libertarianism and the ideas written into the COTUS & BOR (to include federalism) is most visible.

Does anyone know what libertarianism is, by the way? It seems like few people here have any idea about what it is. That can be easily derived by, for example, the arguments of Robert and others. If you don’t know anything about libertarianism (and it’s clear you guys don’t), don’t bother criticizing it.


Anyway, I’m done with this thread (and the other one). If you are not willing to read and understand my position, don’t bother posting. My opinions have been laid out and supported, and since no one is apparently interested in contesting my arguments and principles (and you have to read and think about my posts to be able to know what my arguments and principles are in the first place), there’s no need for me to keep posting it. That’s it. There will be opportunities in the future, no doubt. I’d suggest that if you’re actually interested in debating about the issue, you take the time to not only learn about the history of the Constitution and this country, but also take the time to read and understand my position. Kind of hard to argue against something when you don’t know what you’re arguing against in the first place.

 

[lacoochee]

OMG, TwitchALot, type much?

 

[only1asterisk]

TwitchALot,

I wasn't going to take the time to rebut all the hyperbole and dramatics. I'm really glad you did. You did I much better job than I would have.

David

 

[TwitchALot]

OMG, TwitchALot, type much?

Type quickly, think quickly. It's not so bad if you're a fast typer. If you're slow, such a thing can be quite painful.

I understand my posts are long, but it is that way for a reason. No need to rush reading and thinking about it. I'd rather have people take a week and read it and think about it before posting than skim over it and post right away.

I wasn't going to take the time to rebut all the hyperbole and dramatics. I'm really glad you did. You did I much better job than I would have.

Not a problem. If the issue weren't important, I wouldn't have spent the time to do it. But the ignorance is rather shocking- from people thinking the Bill of Rights restricts the rights of individuals to the misconceptions about libertarianism, capitalism, economics, so on. I understand most people won't take the time to read and rebut my actual arguments, but what I am concerned about is whether people actually understand that the issue is more complex than they make it out to be. There are a lot of misconceptions and lies out in the world about everything from Chuck Norris to gun control.

And, if people don't want to read, research, and understand what's going on, then such people are in no position to enter a serious debate or criticize a stance. For the most part, I'm just surprised that such misconceptions are present here, at THR. If no one will reply to my arguments, that's fine. But at least do yourself the favor of understanding them in the first place. It is important, as it concerns the very core of our nation, our freedoms, and our future. You can't protect anything if you don't know what you're supposed to protect in the first place. Read the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence. Learn the history of our nation and the thoughts, and more importantly perhaps, reasoning of the Founding Fathers. Figure out why they said the things they did, and what they mean. I didn't learn it all in a year, and I'm still learning even now. I hardly expect anyone to understand the various issues, argumentatively, logically, rationally, and historically, with just a few posts.

 

[1x2]

Twitchalot,

That’s a preposterous argument. How can you possibly justify this?

For a poster to accuse others so often of not reading and thinking about your posts, you don't do much in return. If there's some point that you don't understand or upon which you would like further clarification, why not post as a human being and just ask? I don't see any rebuttal in your posts, simply a dismissal.

You could start by musing over the differences between private, non-commercial property and the grantees of business licenses that purport to hold themselves out to serve the public. Let us know what you come up with.

If you note any insulting language herein, please let ME know, as I've been thinking I'm posting on THR.

1x2

 

[TwitchALot]

For a poster to accuse others so often of not reading and thinking about your posts, you don't do much in return. If there's some point that you don't understand or upon which you would like further clarification, why not post as a human being and just ask? I don't see any rebuttal in your posts, simply a dismissal.

There is no clarification that makes it any less preposterous (as I will show below). It is completely inconsistent. It's okay to deny one right, but all others are to be protected.

As far as the dismissal thing goes, I will rebut arguments against my position, or arguments in general (they have to be arguments, however). Robert, for example, has made arguments against a position that neither I, or other libertarians, hold. So I rebutted those a couple times and then dismissed the rest. Quite frankly, if you're (generally speaking) not going to address my position, why should I address the addressal?

You could start by musing over the differences between private, non-commercial property and the grantees of business licenses that purport to hold themselves out to serve the public. Let us know what you come up with.

But this is incorrect. Businesses are not in the business of serving the public. They are in the business of making money. If, and it does happen, a group wants to serve the public, it will create a non-profit organization. Businesses are not non-profit organizations. The reason I dismiss such arguments is because they are contrary to the truth, reality, and fact. They are arguments that are based off of ignorant statements, like this one. How can you possibly believe businesses hold themselves out to serve the public? They are out to serve themselves.

As a side effect of them making money, other people benefit. Libertarians are the champions of mutual benefit. Business sells a good and earns a profit, customers buy a good and leave, in their minds, with more than they entered with (provided that there is no coercion going on). It happens to be a mutually beneficial exchange, but don't assume that the business is doing it for the customer, or that the customer is doing it for the business. When transactions are voluntarily made, BOTH believe that they are benefiting from the exchange. It has little to do with altruism.

In any case, if the area in question is private property, it matters not what they do with it. A private piece of property that has a business on top of it is no different from a private piece of property with a house on top of it (as far as the issue of rights is concerned). Arguing otherwise would be equivalent, in principle, to arguing that we are all humans with rights, but humans with a different skin color have less rights.

If you note any insulting language herein, please let ME know, as I've been thinking I'm posting on THR.

1x2

Whatever implication you're trying to make doesn't hold much water. If you consider my attacks on your arguments (and you may note that the part you quoted is exactly that) attacks on yourself, there's no point in arguing.

 

[Snowdiver]

Twitchalot speak for me on this issue. Great job, keep it up!