Defining the noun "Liberal"

Of course. The discussion is about principles of classical liberal/libertarian theory vs. American liberalism. If you are not interested in such conceptual things, why you participate?

Certainly not. Public property is owned by all people, and all people have equal ownership rights.

The disagreement is about private property. The motel, the small gated community, the church of some religion.

There is, of course, also the case of property owned by groups. Part of it is no doubt private (owned by firms, or unions, associations, churches and so on), but there is also communal property, which one can consider as property of those who live in that village or town. But in this case, other people, not living there, could be excludes from using them. This is not the case, so that communal property is some diffuse mixture of private and public ownership.

First, if one spends a night in a motel, the motel owner has to expect that one also urinates and masturbates there. Hopefully in the appropriate place for this, the restroom, but who knows? So, this particular difference does not really exist.

And if you don't understand what is the point of discussing principles of certain political theories, and see no relevance of such considerations, then have a nice day, but don't participate in such discussions. (And, given that you don't even understand the relevance of the question discussed, you are certainly not competent to evaluate who can be able to help, by proposing reasonable answers.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

See.this is your problem. There is no point engaging someone like you, who can't be relied upon to answer honestly. Why do you just make shit up? What is the point of discussing anything with someone like you who changes the subject from post to post?

Here, let's try it again:

The question is about the principal, conceptual difference.

(#217↑)​

Okay, I won't confuse you, this time, by asking:

• It is a conceptual difference (not the) that is important to you (not the principal).​

See, ask someone if it's a conceptual difference, maybe, and, well, if they are someone of your ethics, they simply change the subject.

And your lack of integrity is your problem, even more than your ignorance.

No, really: You don't understand American law, nor its derivations; you aren't even capable of distinguishing between a church and a motel, with the result that you're now mixing utterely disparate and extraneous legal issues; that is, you aren't even capable of comparing two common elements; your argument pretty much blows itself out the window for the sake of some nationalist machismo.

Like I said, overworn, pathetic, and familiar.

But you are, in fact, pretty clear about your own feelings, comparing the idea of being black to a crime.

Why did you compare being black to a sex crime? Or is it that black people trying to participate in society are akin to a sex crime?

You made the comparison: Can you finish it? Can you explain what part of being black is akin to a sex crime, and why?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The point of the first part I have not understood. "principal" should have been "principled" or so, sorry English is only my third language.

Your problem is that you like to offend your opponents.

Of course I'm able of distinguishing them. And of course I don't know the details of how religious sects and communities are handled in American law. I make about this some assumptions based on German law, which is, of course, only a guess. But in this case, so what? You claim I don't know American law, fine, prove it and correct my errors. If you have really found a serious error, I will correct my considerations. But you present nothing but insults.

Looks that you are completely off, and try to read into a text which you don't understand some racist ideas. But, ok, I will simply modify my question, may be in the modified way it becomes easier to you to understand the point.

Do you think that it is part of civil liberties to visit churches of Christian religions to hail and praise the devil, and therefore this civil liberty should be, of course, allowed and protected by the government?

If not, what makes the principal, conceptual difference between the liberty to hail and praise the devil in the churches of a Christian religion, and the liberty for a black to use a bar or a motel of a white racist?

So, now there is no sex crime involved, but only a completely harmless behavior (devil worship is simply protected by freedom of religion) if done in the appropriate place (devil worshippers can have their own churches), which becomes offensive only because done in the wrong place, namely in the property of another church, which, for whatever irrational motivation, does not worship the devil.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The right of a Satanist to visit a Christian church during times that it is open to the public is protected.
The right of a Satanist to perform his own religious rites in a private church (if the owner does not want that activity there) is not protected.

The right of a black man to use a bar or motel of a white racist is protected.
The right of a black man to hold a Black Lives Matter rally inside the private property of a white racist (if the owner does not want that activity there) is not protected.

Seems pretty simple to me.

 

Because you need to be coddled when you go out of your way to be offensive?

Oh, poor you.

Meanwhile, I await your explanation of how chosen behavior is the same as natural born human condition.

And, see, that's where it shows through. You put tremendous effort into devising some manner of justifying white supremacism and racial/ethnic segregation; this is a behavior many people would describe as racist. And for all that effort, it's still nothing more than toxic balbutive, which only reinforces and clarifies such perceptions and assertions of your racism. And you want us to believe that being born black is akin to going out of one's way to be offensive?

No, seriously, check yourself: Is it that you're not thinking these arguments through?

 

So a Christian church is not allowed to open the church only for Christians, but has to allow Devil worshippers too? Using a principle "once open to all Christians, it has to be open to everybody" or so?
In this case, thanks for this information, this was new to me. Interesting what the Devil worshippers are allowed to do during the Christian religious ceremonies.

No, simply because civilized people would better behave in a civilized way, instead of insulting.

Why do you think I should do such things?

Note, the very point of a comparison is to compare different things. To compare equal things makes no sense. To compare different things is much more interesting, they have something in common, but have also differences. So, by comparing different things I do not claim that they are "the same".

If you don't understand the role of comparisons in a rational discussion, this is your problem, not my. See the reply of billvon. His point - if correct - would be a valid counterargument. But the very point of the counterargument is that in the essential aspect there is no relevant difference in the legal handling of above cases.

 

No. Nobody has any "right" to be served by a white racist motel owner, under liberal principles (or mine).

I obviously do nothing of the kind. I am merely restricting the behavior of the motel owner, in one specific respect. Nobody got any extra rights in consequence - the white people don't have a right to use the motel, neither do the black people. Nobody does.

Nonsense. There is of course such a thing as equal rights of ownership - all owners having the same rights - and equal right to be an owner in the first place. Solved.

btw: Those are both among the equalities denied to black people by allowing white racists to refuse service on racial grounds, in a situation like the US (with too many and too wealthy racists).

It is, and the law remains useful. So adjust your theory accordingly, given the facts of the matter.

There have been four now. Here's the fifth: If religious practices or exclusions deny other people equal civil rights and liberties under the law, they would be of course restricted by a liberal government in order to defend those rights and liberties. Otherwise not. Handle all your fantasies accordingly.

This is basic liberal principle. If you haven't mastered it, now's the time.

Meanwhile: You are now posting your idiotic obscenities in bolded font? Have a bit of dignity.

You're working on this yet:

 

In this case, no right is violated if the hotel owner refuses to serve the black guy. For whatever reason.

If the owner can be forced to present reasons for the refusal, it follows that he has a right, one with some restrictions, so that there acceptable legal reasons to refuse, but at the base there has to be some right.

In this case, you justification of this restriction has to be changed. You have used the notions of "civil rights and liberties" to justify them. If you would, say, argue that this restriction is necessary to preserve the Holyness of Blackness or so, I would not have objected - this would have been simply another point in the list where American liberalism clearly and obviously differs from European classical liberalism.

Learn to read. Of course, the rights of the owners to do something with the property differ, and very much, from the rights of the non-owners of that property.

Emphasis mine. Here we are, again, close to the very basic point. What you really don't like the actual distribution of property rights. One way to solve such a problem would be a revolution, with a redistribution of property rights. After this redistribution, one can have, again, a classical liberal society. Only the redistribution itself would violate liberal principles. Another one the destruction of the liberal principles related with property. This is your choice, and the choice of American liberalism.

Ok, I have the following straightforward possibilities:
1.) It follows that Americans are extremely stupid. Because it would be extremely simple to learn a safe way to enforce racist boycotts: (1) you should not openly tell that you refuse to serve because he is black. Simply say nothing why you refuse. (2) If asked why, answer "because I don't like you".
Completely implausible for a nation where something similar, "don't ask, don't tell", was even the official rule how to handle the similar question of gays in the military.
2.) (1) is false because, despite your claim, this is not safe.
3.) The law is useless, if the aim is if it prevents white racists from boycotting blacks. It is not useless if the real aim is quite different from the claimed aim.

This is not an answer, but avoiding the answer.

Do religious practices or exclusions, which I have used in my examples, deny other people equal civil rights and liberties under the law or not? Given that I don't understand your ideas about the meaning of the phrase "equal civil rights and liberties under the law", I'm unable to find an answer. That's why I asked you if some specific examples violate your "equal civil rights and liberties under the law", and why.

Actually, it looks like "equal civil rights and liberties under the law" simply serves like a universally applicable excuse. You like some law - fine, that means it protects "equal civil rights and liberties under the law". You don't like a law, it follows that it violates "equal civil rights and liberties under the law" and should be rejected. A further specification, which could allow me to argue that some law does, or does not violate "equal civil rights and liberties under the law", and would therefore endanger the universal applicability of this excuse, you obviously avoid.

It was an attempt to force you to answer the questions. It worked partially, because you have repeated your refusal to answer yet again, so it became now clear and obvious that you really, intentionally refuse to answer.

To answer the questions was easy for billvon, but not for you. You know why, I know why. Because you have understood what follows, and what this means for you: The necessity to specify the meaning of your "equal civil rights and liberties under the law". You understand that such a specification would be fatal. Either I would be able to show that it is absurd, applying it to some extreme obscenities and so on, or it would allow me to show its racist character, or to show that gated communities and racist motels do not violate any "equal civil rights and liberties under the law".

But as long as you avoid a precise definition, specification of "equal civil rights and liberties under the law", you can continue to claim whatever you like about these "equal civil rights and liberties under the law", and all this combined with 'you don't know the meaning of "equal civil rights and liberties under the law"'-rhetorics.

 

If they are open to the public, then yes, they must open to everyone. (Most, in my experience, do this.)
If it is a private service, then no, they do not have to open to everyone.

Again, this is fairly simple. Not sure why you cannot understand it.

What do you think they are allowed to do? It will be interesting to see what strawman you create this time.

 

That depends on the physical reality surrounding the hotel and the encounter. This is not a purely theoretical or abstract matter - in the US, in fact, the black person's rights would be violated by such discriminations if based on race, due to the widespread prevalence and influence of racial bigotry in the US. If as you insist your liberal principles are formulated and intended to apply to actual government, they will recognize this reality and guide liberal governance accordingly.

Allowing the hotel owner to refuse on that one specific ground - race - would in fact deny the black person in the United States their equal freedoms and liberties. Your principles either account for that fact or they don't.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on what they are, of course, and the rest of the physical situation as well as the theoretical setup. When they do, liberal government is bound to restrict them in defense of the civil liberties involved. When they don't, liberal government ignores them.

That's the sixth repetition of the answer.

In fact, you are wrong. It turns out to be fairly difficult, and so the civil rights and liberties involved are in fact protected.

That turns out not to work. In fact.

I simply agreed with your meaning, pointing out only that your naive employment of it leads to problems for you. The "meaning" is not your problem - it's your ignorance of the role of physical reality that is giving you fits here.

I have specified, explicitly, the exact area in which your formulation breaks down - its self-contradictions in guiding actual liberal policy. You simply need to adjust your theory to allow for physical fact.

In addition, I have specified a half dozen such rights and liberties, repeatedly, throughout this thread, useful as specific examples of this problem you have: freedom of contract, for example - you clearly regard it as important in liberal principle, I agreed, and it made a good illustration of a freedom black people lose when white racists too strongly influence the economy of a large region via voluntary cooperation. Specifically (since your imagination is notably impoverished in this arena, I have found specifics necessary), black people (and white non-racists) cannot in fact contract for employment as truck drivers as white people (including white racists) can, under such circumstances. They also cannot equivalently contract to obtain medical care, housing, consumer goods, education, or recreational experiences. They cannot contract for loans, business equipment and supplies, or insurance of any kind. And so forth.

Voluntary white racial discrimination in the US has, can, and will deny black people "equal civil rights and liberties", physically, in your meaning of the term, unless forbidden to do so by government law.

 

Not in liberal theory. In liberal theory it depends on the ownership. Once the owner owns the motel, he can decide who is allowed to enter it. Without any obligation to give reasons.

Given that the owner is not obliged to justify his decisions about his property, he may refuse without having any ground at all. For 0 reasons. If you add yet another reason, namely the race, this does not matter at all, once 0 grounds are sufficient for rejection, one more ground would be sufficient too. This holds, of course, only in a liberal society, not in a racist one, where, say, a member of the white race has to submit his property to all blacks.

Forbidding one reason means forbidding the free decision about the own property, and extracts a very important part of usual property rights from the owner. It is incompatible with liberal principles.

In other words, there are no principles at all, all depends on "reality", which is, of course, only an euphemism for your personal prejudices. But, whatever "reality", it is clear that "reality" does not have any principles, because principles are human inventions, and reality is not.

Which means that "I don't like you" is not sufficient as a legally accepted reason. Else, it would be simple. Feel free to confront me with the reality, and explain, what makes the things so difficult for the racist who uses the simply "don't tell why, except 'I don't like you'" policy to reject black customers. And this explanation will show us that your

(emphasis mine) is simply wrong.

No. In my meaning of "civil rights and liberties" they would not be violated at all even if all motel owners not only racist ones, would refuse somebody as a customer, for whatever reason.

With the single exception of motels in public ownership. And even in this case the public which owns it matters: Federal property should be open for all citizens of the United States, state property only to citizens of the state, communal property only to citizens of the commune, everything else is already a free decision of the instance which decides about that property.

This follows from the very idea of ownership, which is presupposed in my meaning of "civil rights and liberties". And I have always and consistently explained this. So, to claim that you somehow use my meaning of "civil rights and liberties" is clearly false.

So, you use a completely unspecified notion of "civil rights and liberties" to construct some contradictions with my notion of "civil rights and liberties".

Except that we have a very different understanding of the meaning of "freedom of contract". I have repeatedly clarified that freedom of contract gives you nothing without the voluntary agreement of the owner. Once this freedom gives you nothing, you cannot lose anything if you do not have any voluntary agreement of the owner. There is no right to get any contract simply because a contract presupposed voluntary agreement of all participants.

They can, if somebody agrees to contract them as truck drivers. If this is probably or not, is nothing which matters. Because freedom of contract is not a right to work as a truck driver. It becomes the freedom to work as a truck driver only if there is a voluntary agreement of a truck company to hire you. As long as there is no such agreement, you have no right to work as a truck driver which could be violated.

Once I have clearly stated that freedom of contract does not give you any rights to have contracts, all your examples of situations where blacks have no real chance to make contracts are simply irrelevant. And once there is no right to have some contracts at all, for all people, including white racists, the fact that there is no such right for blacks in no way violates equal rights before the law. No rights for all before the law for some things are also in agreement with equal rights before the law.

If you want a society where blacks have a right for some services, you have to enslave those who are obliged to serve those who have these rights. Not? This is a simple conclusion, which need almost nothing but simple common sense meaning of words and elementary logic. Let's see:
1.) A right for some services is not such a right, except in newspeak, if it is possible that you want that service, but the state says "so what" and leaves you without that service. So, if there is a right, and you want the service, the state has to provide it.
2.) To provide a service without any use of enslavement, the state has to find somebody who voluntary provides this service. But this is nothing the state can enforce. Again, except in newspeak. So, the state is unable to provide the service without using some sort of enslavement.

 

The possibility I miss is the possibility
1.) to open it to, say, all believers into a certain religious belief, and only them.
2.) to open it to all people who have signed some paper, say, membership of some religious organization, and only them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and if these possibilities exist for US churches too.

I can, without problem, understand various laws. What I cannot understand is on which grounds people defend such laws. I see no objective point to force religious communities to open their churches even for self-declared enemies of their religion if they want to open it for all believers or supporters of the religion.

I think nothing about this. It is already absurd if there are some circumstances ("open to the public") where they have to be allowed to enter at all. So I simply ask for details, to find out some more absurdities.

I would never enter a church without knowing that the believers of this church are comfortable with me doing this. Elementary decency. If I would enter, say, a mosque, I would feel obliged even some of the ritual prescriptions (like undressing shoes, washing feet) as far as they are not in conflict with my own convictions. So, if mosques would be obliged to allow Christians or even atheists to public (in the sense of open to the Umma) prayers, without obligating those Christians to undress their shoes, this would add another example to absurdity of American law.

BTW, American law is, anyway, for me interesting only as a rich collection of absurdities. And, of course, once I ask for information about American laws, instead of making claims of what these laws are, its certainly not me who creates strawmen.

 

You are bringing religion into it, and that is an error. The US government does not make law that respects any establishment of religion. What it DOES do is protect property rights. And if you have a PRIVATE ceremony (i.e. a ceremony where the public is not invited) then you, as a property owner, can choose to invite (or exclude) anyone you like. If you have a PUBLIC ceremony then anyone can enter. (At least anyone who obeys US law in other ways.)

It is not based on religion, no matter how much you want it to be about satanists. It is about the rights of property owners in the US.

There is no such law. There are laws that say you have the right to determine what happens on your property - and if that means that you have a guest list of people who are invited to your wedding ceremony, then great. If you want to have it open to the public, great. What you CANNOT do is allow everyone in except people in protected classes (i.e. certain religion, races, sexes or sexual orientations.)

Again, pretty simple. Don't want to risk having secret satanists in your congregation? Don't open to the public.

That is simple respect, and it usually goes both ways. That is (and should be) very different from law.

There is no law that says Christians have to take their shoes off, nor should there be.

 

When I was young, someone vandalized the church my family attended. People wept, including the insurance adjuster, the day everyone came together to install locks on the church doors.

In the Gay Fray, it became increasingly popular and acceptable among evangelical Christian churches to turn people away at the door.

Mostly it's an interesting contrast: Christians deciding who should be allowed an opportunity to be saved.

In the U.S., anyone has the right to call themselves Christian, regardless of their behavior. That is to say, even if the claim is antithetical―e.g., one is a Christian and therefore either above God's law or else obliged by God to break it―people still get to try to swindle each other.

In your example, Devil worshippers aren't so much a problem as the fake Christians you describe.

(1) Public square is public square.

(2) Technically, yes, a church can refuse you entry beceause someone merely suspects you of being a sinner.

(3) They cannot, however, kick you out for being a suspected Negro.

↳ In theory, they've gotten along just fine this way.​

Think of it this way, Schmelzer: I find the person represented by the part you play here pretty much unacceptable. To the other, you do, in fact, exist. That is to say, it's enough to hold your terrible behavior and lack of ethics against the character you play at Sciforums, which really is a terrible human beihng. But there really isn't point in holding the mere fact of your existence against you. Being born is only an offense if I work really, really hard to convince myself it is.

You need to learn the difference.

 

But with some - many - reasons denied - because the nature of "ownership" is a theoretical matter, and so is the definition of "enter", "decide", etc.

The owner cannot, for example, promise on the phone to allow entry and then simply change his mind - after the person has traveled and arrived with money etc - as a prank, to harass and endanger the traveller, make them vulnerable to thieves as they sleep in their car, etc. He cannot allow entry to those dumping toxic waste on the grounds or into his septic system, either. His powers of decision are restricted in many ways.

Among the many reasons for entry denial forbidden in the US, by anyone attempting to establish liberal governance in the US, would be race. That is because allowing denial based on race causes loss of civil rights and liberties for the governed citizenry, contrary to liberal principles.

But that is a judgment of fact, as well as theory, and you are in error - you have ignored the physical circumstances of the US, overlooked the assumptions of your own theory, and garbled the meanings of your own terms. In fact, the civil rights of black people in the US have been, are, and would be, violated - completely denied to them - if white racists were allowed to behave in that way.

No, you are wrong - a US motel owner can in fact deny entry based on their dislike of a person. An individual person.

But freedom of contract requires that one have the freedom to make the contract, as well. Both refusal and agreement must be possible. Right?

And they must be possible in fact - people locked in cells can refuse contracts as much as they want to, but they cannot make certain contracts: you have agreed that means they have no freedom of contract.

So here's your problem, that most actual liberals do not have: If you allow white racism unrestricted expression in behavior in the US, under the guise of "freedom of contract", everybody else loses their equal freedom of contract - lose it entirely, not just with the white racists but with each other as well.

This presents you with an apparent contradiction - your liberal principles of governance cannot be satisfied in a region like the US, no matter what you do, as long as you insist on your aberrant interpretation of "freedom of contract" as applying preferentially to white racists only. How will you solve this? Will you give up on liberal governance as impossible in physical reality?

 

That would be nice. But what I conclude from all this discussion, private property is not protected. I'm not allowed to invite to my private property all those I like, because they support similar ideas, but not those, who propose ideas I hate. Because, afaiu, the first group is somehow "public", because I don't know them all personally, and if I allow the public, I have to allow also all those who follow ideas I hate. It would be nice if this would be a misunderstanding. Is it? Sounds like it is:

And once this is, imho, a horrible situation, I try to explain this, with the help of some examples how this legal situation may be misused in despisible ways.

That means, it is legal in the US to enter, as an atheist, at the time of a public prayer, a mosque, without taking of the shoes. This would be completely legal, and the moslems would be obliged to allow this. Not? They should be allowed to enter, and they are not obliged to take their shows off. (Maybe they can even eat some pork?)

But if my religion morally or even dogmatically obliges me to open such a place for all true believers? But, ok, this looks like a case where no argument is imaginable. There is a law, the law forbids it, if you like it or not is not important. Discussions if some laws make sense or not presuppose that all participants have some criteria which would allows to classify some laws as stupid.

Sometimes language ist treacherous. There are protected classes, and there is remaining lowlife.

No need at all, because I have never thought that being born is an offense. An I would not have any problem at all if you, or your community, would exclude me. Without even giving a justification. I would not wonder, there are many places where telling truth is unacceptable behavior, this is even more typical than the other way. American liberalism is, it seems more and more clear, something which has not only not much in common with classical liberalism, but another category, not a theory of law, but a quasi-religion, with Holy prescriptions known as Political Correctness. If you would openly declare that this is not a place for open discussion, but one for prayer of the Religion of the Politically Correct, I would go away myself, out of decency.

Of course, words have often quite vague common sense meanings, and one problem which may be solved by law is that it specifies one of these meanings as the relevant one. But this is not the case here. "enter", "decide", "volitional" are quite clear and uncontroversial here. And if the law modifies the unproblematic common sense meaning, we have a case of 1984 newspeak.

The first case is simply a particular case of a broken contract. In civilized countries at least this is simple: Or the "promise" was so vague that it has no legal consequences, or it is a binding contract even if not written on paper and signed. In the second case something different is forbidden, namely dumping toxic waste. Allowing entry for doing something criminal may be a form of participation in that crime.

Obviously not. A repetition of an obviously wrong fact does not make it true. I have explained how this can be used to deny entry to all persons I do not like. I simply reject them, and if asked for reason I say "I do not like you as an individual person". It is you who has said that this does not work. Thus, if I do this, I will be punished. Once I will be punished, simply by doing this, I'm in fact not allowed. Case settled.

But agreement leads to a contract only together with the agreement of the other participants. If the agreement of the other side is missed, you agreement remains allowed - you will not be punished for giving the agreement - but will not lead to a valid contract.

That's a different case. Here, above participants may agree to the contract. With freedom of contract, this would lead to a contract. But the prison administration objects, so that the contract does not become a legal contract. A completely different situation.

Freedom of contract means that you are free to reject whatever contract is proposed to you - so that as the result of your refusal to sign there will be no contract - or to agree to the proposal. But your agreement is not sufficient for a contract. For a contract you need the voluntary acceptance of all participants. Else, there will be no contract.

And note also that the freedom to reject a contract is much more fundamental - without the freedom to reject any contract you are a slave, at least in part.

 

Your conclusion is incorrect, then.

You are indeed allowed to do that. Have a party, invite 1000 people you like, then have bouncers to keep people out who aren't invited.

No, you don't. If you don't allow the PUBLIC (which means everyone) in then you don't have to allow people in whose ideas you hate.

Legal? Yes, in the sense you would not be breaking any laws.

But what would happen in reality? You would get asked to take your shoes off. If you were an asshole, you'd refuse. They would probably yell at you and tell you to get out. You'd say "no, your service is open to the public." And they'd call the police, and the police would say "well, yeah, it's technically open to the public. Let's step out here and talk about it."

And the next time you came back, you might get away with it again. But eventually they'd put up a sign that said "members of congregation only." And this would stop you (legally) from entering, and also harm the people who just wanted to go to a new mosque. Which is why doing that would make you an asshole.

Then have a test for people as they come in the door to see if they are "true believers" - and make it clear that this is a private ceremony for just such people. (Of course, even in that case, a satanist might fake the answers to the questions, sneak in, and think satanist thoughts during your true believer ceremony.)

There is lowlife everywhere. Everyone who opens to the public runs the risk of such lowlife. Again, if you don't want to take this risk - don't open to the public.

You seem to have a lot of trouble with the concept of "public." "Public" means everyone, even if you hate their guts because they are satanists (or black, or conservatives, or loudmouths.)

Political Correctness (your caps, not mine) is no more or less than "be polite." It is something most people learned when they were children. Some people have trouble with it; indeed, seem to delight in their ability to be assholes - to call people names, to attack people, to denigrate whole swaths of Americans (or indeed people anywhere.) Most don't. C'est la vie.

 

Of course it is. Including the private property of black people - which must be protected equally, under liberal governance.

Exactly. You seem to be unable to recognize it, though, in actual practice - such as when you use "freedom of contract" to describe a situation in which white racists coordinate their behavior in order to deny freedom of contract to black people.

Legality has nothing to do with it. The prison administration does not bother with the legality of such contracts - they simply prevent their physical fulfillment. If the law says that prison inmates are free to accept jobs as airline pilots, the prison administration does not object to that, or even pay any attention to it - they just keep the doors locked.

It's almost exactly the same situation. We have physical denial of civil rights and liberties that are - in your newspeak - supposedly guaranteed by your newspeak "liberal" government. The question is how you are going to modify your theory and "liberal" recommendations to account for this physical fact.

Sure. Exactly. So?

Freedom to offer, accept, and fulfill a contract is exactly as fundamental as the freedom to reject or avoid a contract. Can't have one without the other.

Just as freedom to travel is exactly as fundamental as the freedom to stay home.

And of course any legal system, and government, to exist and enforce contracts at all, has to legally establish and regulate the terms under which they can be accepted or refused. If they are established so that black people are in fact denied the civil rights and freedoms enjoyed by white people, that government is no longer a "liberal" one - right?

 

That means, I'm not allowed to invite all Christians but not Satanists. But this is the very aim of a Christian church - to be open for all Christians.

Fine. So this would make one an asshole, but an asshole supported by law enforcement, because the law supports such asshole behaviour as a "civil right and liberty", and harms peaceful religious people. Which is my point.

Sorry, you have explained (not?) that something to all "true believers", including those I don't know personally, would make this public, so that I would not be allowed to do this without allowing everybody else too.

Sorry, no. What forces me to accept such lowlife would be the law. Because it would not allow me to distinguish good people from lowlife using my personal life experience. Once I invite people I don't know personally, it is public, thus, I have to allow people which I hate, who hate me and come in to harm me and my friends.

So, peaceful meetings of good people, protected from lowlife not by personal knowledge, but more diffuse general criteria, are not allowed. So, the law is antisocial. To protect themselves from lowlife, the only legal choice is to restrict yourself to private meetings, inherently restricted to low numbers because you need personal knowledge.

I have no trouble with this concept. I have trouble that a law forces to admit the "public" once one admits more than a few personal friends.

No. Being polite in the classical meaning is forbidden by political correctness as sexism. Because classical politeness prescribes very different behavior for man and women, in their behavior in relation with man and women. Ok, one can interpret it as some sort of new "politeness", but this would be the same newspeak.

Once the public is allowed to use it, and to use it in its own way, after the owner allows more than a few people he personally knows, it is not protected, at least in some, very important, circumstances. It is not only not protected, but, much worse, the state forbids to protect it.

I can understand it if you think that white racist lowlife should not have any freedom of contract, but freedom of contract is defined as it is, and does not contain any obligation to sign contracts. So, if the white racist lowlife does not want to sign contracts with a black Übermensch, freedom of contract gives them this right.

In this case, this has nothing to do with freedom of contract. It is a much more fundamental right which has been taken away from the prisoner, as a penalty. I thought you have in mind quite typical cases where the prison administration forbids exchange between prisoners of things they own, and so on.

There is no much need to modify liberal principles. The prisoner has violated important rights of other people, and violating as a response, his own rights is justified by general moral principles, as long as this response does not violate upper boundaries of reasonable, adequate reaction, like those mentioned in the rule "an eye for an eye". So, there is already a large body of political theory which cares about appropriate penalties for rule breaking. But that penalties violate basic fundamental rights of the prisoners, and would, therefore, have to be rejected if there would be no justification as a penalty for the crime done, is a triviality here.

The question is how you are going to modify your theory and "liberal" recommendations to account for this physical fact.

No need. I can offer you to sell you a bridge. Without owning a bridge I will have a big problem with fulfilling that contract. I may have the freedom to do this - if the bridge would be my property, I could really do this. But this freedom means nothing if I don't own the bridge.

Except that "freedom to travel" is a phrase which has not much to do with what it really the point. Which is the quite restricted right to travel to my property, and to travel to the outside world.

No. Because rights related with ownerships of property are very different, and should be in no way equal in a liberal state. Liberal states therefore have to defend rights which are unequal, because unequal property leads to a factual inequality, as a consequence of the (equal) right and freedom of using the own property as one likes.

You understand very well this difference, and you simply want to confuse them. The equal right is the general right of using the own property as one likes. If the whites own all the property, this leads de facto to blacks having no possibility to do things the white owners can do. This is a consequence of property distribution, and has nothing to do with liberal equal rights.

 

False dichotomy, nonexistent situation: The law recognizes private weddings, funerals, all kinds of such gatherings. The specific situation of commercial dealings with the public is a defined one, in the law.

Nonsense. That's not how the law is written, or how anyone with any sense would write it.

Freedom of contract includes the freedom to make voluntary contracts, when both sides agree. If two willing parties cannot make any such contracts, they do not have freedom of contract.

Among the rights taken away is freedom of contract - which you have described, and I agreed, as fundamental to civil rights and liberties.
I am glad you recognize that the prisoner has lost some fundamental rights not because they are legally denied, but because they are physically denied.
Now pay attention: Likewise the black person, in the US, if white racists are allowed to voluntarily exclude them from the white racists's commercial dealings with the public. This actually happened.
Liberal government must prevent this, by definition of liberal government.

Liberal government must prevent unequal circumstances from leading to unequal civil rights and freedoms. If you say that is impossible, you are saying liberal government is impossible.

The racist whites did not and do not own all the property.

Nonracist whites and blacks owned property, as well. But they did not have equal rights of ownership, in fact. The white racist voluntary cooperation dominated the society and denied them.

Black people in the US were, are, and would be: prevented from using their own property as they liked; prevented from acquiring property even from willing sellers (white people also lost freedom of contract); prevented from contracting for the rental or other use of property even from willing owners; prevented from traveling between different properties they rented or owned or had the use of; prevented from equally defending their own property against unwanted access and use; prevented from obtaining loans and making other financial arrangements (such as utility connections) using their property as collateral; and so forth.

White racist owners could do all these things, since they enjoyed full rights of ownership over their property. Black owners could not, because they did not.

Liberal government must - by definition - prevent that.