"Kevin S. Van Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Tyler Durden wrote: > > Let's take one of my famous extreme examples. > > Let's say a section of > > the New Jersey Turnpike gets turned over to a > > private company, which > > now owns and operates this section. > > > > So...now let's say I'm black. NO! Let's say I'm > > blond-haired and blue > > eyed, and the asshole in the squad car doesn't > > like that, because his > > wife's been bangin' a surfer. So...he should be > > able to toss me off > > the freeway just because of the way I look? (Or > > the way I'm dressed or the car I drive or whatever.) > > Not if he wants to keep his job. This is supposed > to be a profit-making > operation, remember? Pissing off or outright > throwing out paying > customers is a good way to make the company lose > money, which is bound > to get the owners quite upset.
That's too logical, and as you state below mere economic incentive does not cover the case where organised bigotry drives an agenda of exclusion. Your much vaunted Constitution and the Bill of Rights are supposed to address this issue, since the principles in question govern the overall social fabric, which is supposed to provide for a measure of equality in `the commons', but in practice that is not so. I'll note that as a practical matter it looks sort of like your Constitution (and the Charter up here in Canukistan) have become of little more use than as bog-roll, so while these discussion are nice to have in theory, there is no practical application to be made in this environment. > Let's suppose, however, that the owners are such > extreme bigots that > they prefer nursing their prejudices over making > money. Should the > owners be able to arbitrarily deny certain people > access to their > property? In the absence of a valid contract to the > contrary, OF > COURSE. Anybody for whom this is not blindingly > obvious still hasn't > grasped the fundamental concept that most children > acquire by the age of > three or four: the difference between MINE and > YOURS. This has always been something of a peeve of mine; that certain people consistently fail to make this distinction. If I were more knowledgeable in the fields of genetics and human neurophysiology I might suggest that the widespread nature of this moral failure results from a common psychological artifact that is manifest from some bizarre recessive gene. But the simpler explanation is that it is learned behaviour, which implicates bad parenting. Whatever the cause, its prevalence has resulted in norms coded in law which agents of the state surely appreciate. > > The way I see it is there's private property, > > there's public property, > > and then there's reality with lots of stuff in > > between. > > No, there's private property, there are unowned > (unclaimed) resources, > and that's it. I don't consider the State to have > any valid property > rights at all, as everything which it claims as its > property was > obtained by theft, violence, or both. Your "stuff > in between" is just a > bunch of hooey invented in order to justify > violations of property > rights. Sort of like this "compelling state > interest" test invented by > the frauds in the Supreme Court to weasel their way > past the clear and > unambiguous wording of the First Amendment; no trace > of the concept exists in the Constitution. I agree. The state should not be able to own property. But again, as a practical and historical matter, states own the planet; government employees have parceled much of it out to corporations, or sold bits to private individuals. Supposedly, property of the government is held in trust for the population, but that fiction is of course quite laughable. I would say that some tuning of government is indicated given the current mess, but these days that sort of talk is bound to get one thrown into a gulag. Though, perhaps this state of affairs isn't quite as much of a problem. Crypto-anarchy and the march of science are tending towards the obsolescence of the nation-state, so no-one may need to do much of anything radical at all to effect changes in this regard. Regards, Steve ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
