FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > Moral Foundations & Principles
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

Poll: well?
Poll Options
well?

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-10-2005, 12:31 AM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Next smoke-filled cellar over from Preno.
Posts: 6,562
Default

This I understand. I just want to make sure you understand two points:

1. What you think ought to be is pretty unique in history. Very few people have ever held such an extreme view of property rights.

2. If you got your way, the practical consequences for the human race would be catastrophic.
IsItJustMe is offline  
Old 08-10-2005, 12:31 AM   #32
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 61,538
Default

It really depends on the extent to which local self-government exists to begin with and a whole lot of other factors. Some people would say if you want independence you have to be ready to shed your blood for it. States of Ethiopia had an agreement to permit secession at any time (Eritrea seceded, leaving Ethiopia sans coastline). I would say that it could be very inconvenient if Alaska decided to secede so it could keep all its oil royalty.
premjan is offline  
Old 08-10-2005, 12:32 AM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Next smoke-filled cellar over from Preno.
Posts: 6,562
Default

How does law still exist? What prevents the strategy I outlined to escape justice from working?
IsItJustMe is offline  
Old 08-10-2005, 12:33 AM   #34
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Eindhoven
Posts: 1,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IsItJustMe
This I understand. I just want to make sure you understand two points:

1. What you think ought to be is pretty unique in history. Very few people have ever held such an extreme view of property rights.

2. If you got your way, the practical consequences for the human race would be catastrophic.
I'll ask this again.

Practically speaking, you think white nationalists are repugnant.

How is it threatening to you that they live in their own communities? How is it threatening to anyone who might find them threatening, if they infact want to segregate themselves from mainstream society?
thumper is offline  
Old 08-10-2005, 12:34 AM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Next smoke-filled cellar over from Preno.
Posts: 6,562
Default

Little by little, thumper. I promise you I'll answer that fully. But let's get the basics tied up first. I still don't understand how law is going to work.
IsItJustMe is offline  
Old 08-10-2005, 12:36 AM   #36
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Eindhoven
Posts: 1,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IsItJustMe
Little by little, thumper. I promise you I'll answer that fully. But let's get the basics tied up first. I still don't understand how law is going to work.
Let's use our current framework of laws then.

Why are you against certain people segregating themselves from mainstream society?
thumper is offline  
Old 08-10-2005, 12:41 AM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Next smoke-filled cellar over from Preno.
Posts: 6,562
Default

I'm not necessarily. At least, I don't think the practice should be banned outright. I don't think it's healthy for them or wise, but if they are determined to do it I am not against it.

I am however against giving such a group police powers. And I am against discrimination in housing and employment.

Now, if you set up a compound out in rural cornland and only white people are allowed there, the practical harm to other people is negligible... At least until the people in that compound go out and start doing all the things people from compounds like that do.

But if you discriminate in employment or in housing in a civilized area, the practical effect on the people you discriminate against is that they have less housing to choose from and fewer job opportunities.
IsItJustMe is offline  
Old 08-10-2005, 12:45 AM   #38
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Eindhoven
Posts: 1,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IsItJustMe
I'm not necessarily. At least, I don't think the practice should be banned outright. I don't think it's healthy for them or wise, but if they are determined to do it I am not against it.

I am however against giving such a group police powers. And I am against discrimination in housing and employment.

Now, if you set up a compound out in rural cornland and only white people are allowed there, the practical harm to other people is negligible... At least until the people in that compound go out and start doing all the things people from compounds like that do.

But if you discriminate in employment or in housing in a civilized area, the practical effect on the people you discriminate against is that they have less housing to choose from and fewer job opportunities.
You make it sound like white people hold all the cards.

Is that why they're not allowed to discriminate?
thumper is offline  
Old 08-10-2005, 12:51 AM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Next smoke-filled cellar over from Preno.
Posts: 6,562
Default

White people do hold most of the cards, thumper. Every U.S. president and vice president has been white. The overwhelming majority of cabinet secretaries, congressmen, senators, governors, college presidents, generals, etc., all through the history of this country have been white. Most rich people are white. There are many more educated white people than non-white people. Etc. This is not to say that all white people hold the cards; there are certainly many, many powerless white people in this country. But there really aren't that many powerful non-white people. A few, yes, but mostly token and for public consumption.

But that actually isn't the reason discrimination against non-white people shouldn't be allowed. The reason that the emphasis is and should be on discrimination against non-white people is that historically discrimination against non-white people has been an enormous problem, whereas discrimination against white people has never been all that much of a problem on the whole.

But nearly all the civil rights laws apply equally regardless of who is discriminating against whom. It is just as illegal to refuse to rent an apartment to someone because that person is white, or born in the U.S.A., as it is to refuse to rent the apartment because the person is black or foreign born.
IsItJustMe is offline  
Old 08-10-2005, 05:38 AM   #40
Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winona, Mn
Posts: 41,943
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thumper
Let's use our current framework of laws then.

Why are you against certain people segregating themselves from mainstream society?
Let's take an example. Suppose all of the white supremacists banded to together in some part of a state, say Idaho. And to simplify matters, everyone who disagreed or didn't like them left the area.
I agree that if ALL of the white supremacists lived and stayed there, it would be easy to keep tabs on them. And, as long as they did not export any of their bs or expand the numbers, the effect would be like bottling them.
But that is pure fantasy. They would try to export their bs, they would expand their numbers.
I know I wouldn't want to live anywhere near them. I'm sure anyone who was a nonwhite wouldn't want to live anywhere near them.
laughing dog is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:12 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.