thumper

People wouldn't be arrested for violating Gothland laws per se, but by displeasing the owners of Gothland private property, they would be unwelcome and asked to leave. Kinda like a guest who overstays his welcome or who was never invited in the first place
I'm dealing with the first one

On a sidenote, can you give me an honest answer why it's so important to *you* that everyone including myself partake in the grand multi-cultural scheme, so much so that any dissention is codefied in law as illegal? I have trouble understanding why it's so important that we all be a part of this :huh:

thumper

wow, this was finally moved. :Cheeky:

IsItJustMe

OK. So you're not talking about setting up a separate government. Now, of course, even before we get to discrination in land sales or discrimination in hotel accomodations, we have one more interesting thing: In every city in the United States, the streets, sidewalks and parks are maintained by public money. Right? So that property is public property, and the landowner can't tell you to get off of it. Now, there are some regulations concerning, say, camping out on the sidewalk, but if I own my house, and an Abraham Lincoln look-a-like comes walking by every day, I have no right to tell him "You're too ugly to use my sidewalk." Right? Because it's not my sidewalk.

OK. In that case, my objection is as follows: You have a right to control the use of your land. You do not have a right to control who uses it after you're done with it. And if you use it commercially then what you have a right to do is to use it for legitimate commercial purposes and not to go about it just any old way you please.

Therefore, you do not have a right to decide who to sell it to based on, say, whether that person is or is not a goth. Nor do you have a right, if you run apartments, to decide who to rent it to based on whether or not the prospective renter is a goth. Or if it is a hotel, to decide who you rent a room to, or a restaurant, to decide who you will serve, based on whether or not that person is a goth.

You are solely concerned with the liberty of the landowner. I am concerned also with the liberty of people to live where they like, to buy land where they like, to eat where they like, etc.

It's not. And all dissension is not codified by law, nor should it be. If you do not want to date black women, or play pool with black people, far be it from me to force you.

What is important to me is that people's access to education, jobs and housing not depend on their skin color.

It is also important to me that people not engage in violence against one another based on ethnic differences, religious differences, etc. And tragically many people who believe as you do engage in such violence. You don't seem like the type, yourself, but I'll bet you've met people who have done that kind of thing.

Also, I think you will be better off, personally, if you let go of your prejudices. I have known of several cases of "European nationalists," skinheads, etc., whose beliefs were changed after falling in love with Hispanic women. I think you will find you have a wider range of housing options if you consider living in neighborhoods where not everyone is white. I think you will enjoy music more if you learn to enjoy music made by people who are not white. Etc. Of course I would not impose any of this on you, but consider it friendly advice.

Finally, I think that racial tensions play into the hands of capitalists and bankers, and that racial harmony is their enemy. Racism is a divide and conquer tactic.

thumper

I think the road block we keep coming against is... "you can have self-determination and all that jazz... except you can't discriminate based on (fill in one of your values) ___________."

is this the case?

IsItJustMe

I don't think you're even arguing for self-determination, really. Self-determination would mean you get to make laws. You're just arguing for discrimination. I really think that it's just that I don't see property rights as quite as absolute as you do, and I see racial discrimination as a bad thing.

thumper

yes, discrimination is a natural extension of self-determination. If it wasn't, that would be like saying no one has the *moral* perogative in resisting foreign radical Islamic values because that would be 'discriminatory.'

IsItJustMe

No... I don't think so. Self-determination as the word is almost always used has to do with government, laws, etc. Like, the right of East Timor to self-determination means they get to set up their own, separate government.

thumper

To me self-determination means the ability to own property and to associate with whomever you like

thumper

I think that while our beliefs are diametrically opposed to eachother, at least I can see it that way, and I think there can be a co-existence of the two paradigms as long as we have our own living space. Why do you feel it neccessary to impose your world view on me when I'm perfectly content with leaving you alone?

IsItJustMe

Well, you certainly have the right to own property... Conditioned however on your having the money to buy the property. If you have no money you have no right to own property. I do not like to assume, but I think it entirely possible that this latter situation -- unfortunately -- applies to you.

But you certainly have the right to associate with whomever you like, and I wouldn't take it away from you. I would hope that you exercise it wisely and choose friends based on sounder criteria than race, but that certainly is up to you.

But you are limited in your right to decide who to sell property to, and who to hire for a job... Although neither of these may really apply to your case anyway, unless you have property to sell or a business strong enough to hire someone. If you have neither, then this imposition on your rights is purely theoretical.