Defining the noun "Liberal"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Nov 18, 2016.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    And the list one can get from the NSA?

    By the way, even if that would be possible, this would not be the point. Because the intention is a different one. If somebody comes nearby, and decides to convert to Christianity to be allowed to participate, this would be what the church owner would dream of, not? But he would not be on the list. Moreover, imposing bureaucratic requirements is a nice method for making some reasonable things impossible. Do you support such ways of effectively forbidding things by imposing unrealistic bureaucratic requirements? Do you think everything is fine if something which should be allowed out of liberal principles is made impossible in such a dirty tricky way?
    The problem is that, as explained in the example, he is, at least from a legal point of view, not causing any disruption, not showing any disruptive behavior. I have asked about this in the case of not undressing shows in a mosque. The answer was that there is no obligation to undress them, nor should there be. So, even extremely indecent behavior would not be interrupted by the police, because it would be completely legal.

    And you also do not understand that entering private property in a situation where I know that the owner does not want me to enter it, for whatever reasons, is already a willful conduct. Decent people would not do such things.

    Insinuations about my personal preferences, which are, as usual, completely off, disposed.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Decent people don't do a lot of things that are completely legal, and must remain legal under liberal governance, because making them illegal would deprive the citizenry of basic civil rights and liberties.

    Decent people also do many things that other people don't want them to do, because otherwise they could not live as human beings on the planet - there's always somebody ready to be offended by anything.

    Are you suggesting that a liberal government should enforce your standards of decency by law?

    Liberal government should establish civil rights and liberties, equally for all its citizens, under the law. If that offends your sense of decency, too bad.

    btw: That may be the source of your difficulty here - you have a conflict, due to your inability to incorporate physical reality into your liberal legal structure, but its origins are mysterious - this provides us with a clue: your sense of decency.

    Apparently, you regard offending a gas station owner by having black skin while pumping gas as something a decent person would not do and a liberal government would never defend, such behavior offends you,
    while cheating people on their house loans or forcing them to sleep in their cars and carry their own gasoline because they are black is a civil liberty the law must respect - because it doesn't really offend you.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I already provided those examples. I just did it again - there they are. You don't need a link - they are typed out right there.
    Sorry, freedom of contract denied. In fact. This is information for you, about the US situation an all similar situations. Please incorporate this information into your theory.
    Your island case is irrelevant. No one is talking about immigrants, the governance being discussed is of citizens in good standing, already living in the region, already paying taxes etc.
    No, he's not - if he is explicit about allowing only identified believers (he would of course need a list, and some form of ID requirement, to be explicit about that), he can reject everybody else. This is quite common in the US, in private clubs and the like.

    You have had this explained to you several times now. This is pretty simple stuff, one would think.
    Your "agreement" is irrelevant - you are being informed of a physical fact. Facts don't care whether you agree with them. Please adjust your reasoning accordingly.
    They did, in fact, deny that to black people. By that method. In fact. Without breaking any laws. Please adjust your reasoning to accommodate this fact.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No, you'd have to do it yourself. I, for one, would not be OK with government support of bigotry - even if you really, really want to be a bigot.
    Probably not. (Certainly not at my church.) But if they wanted that, that's fine.
    That's a good reason not to have a list, then!
    Nope - which is why it is not effectively forbidden. It might be hard to do. If so, that's fine with me. The case you are discussing (keeping Satanists out of a Christian church) is an absurd case you have made up for the purposes of winning an asinine argument. It is not reality, which is why it does not affect anyone in the US today. The only time anything like it has been expressed in reality is during the times that "no blacks allowed" signs were common in windows of stores, restaurants and hotels - which is why we have protected classes today, to prevent the same sort of government bigotry that was common in the past.
    No "dirty tricky" way. A very simple way, which I have explained to you a dozen times now. If you cannot understand it, that's your problem, not mine.
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No. Read the context to understand what my response was about.
    It doesn't. Your beloved laws violate as liberals, as decency. Ok, I accept that the fact that a law protects indecent behavior is irrelevant for you, thus, cannot be used as an independent argument against that law in an argumentation with you. This was an argument relevant only for people who value decency.
    No, your guesses are wrong. In general, I would recommend you not to make such guesses. They are, anyway, indecent style of argumentation.
    They may be somewhere, but once you don't tell me where, they do not exist for me. I have put the three phrases into the search button, and the result was nothing.
    Sorry, why should I incorporate into my theory claims which are trivially and obviously wrong? There is no right to get a job as a truck driver which would follow from freedom of contract, so nothing is violated by the simple fact that some black people don't find a job as truck drivers.
    So what? Given that I have no link, I may guess your argument only from the few words, and it seems to be about cases where blacks are denied some emergency medical help. Which clearly violates important moral principles. But, unfortunately, to force people to behave in a moral way here would violate liberal principles. This is possible, and this problem is known to me. The island case was simply another example of a similar conflict.
    It is simple stuff, and I have correctly understood this long ago. But this is not the case I'm talking about. A mosque will be usually open for the whole Umma, a synagoge for all jews. That means, for all of the whole world. To make a list of them is impossible, and in particular because this can change, by people converting between religions. To allow this, they would have to allow antisemits, Christians who don't want to undress their shoes, devil worshippers into their churches. If these enemies of that religion enter, and the owner would throw them out, they could come back with the police, which would enforce their right.
    Oh, you go joepistole? Ok, nice to have talked with you. Feel free to believe in joepistole facts. And come back once you have accepted that the question if a right is damaged or not is not a physical fact, but a legal interpretation.
    I see no reason to accept wild fantasies without any specifics as facts.

    Again, feel free to present a particular case. Then we will see. Don't forget that we talk about liberal law, and I have never claimed that US law was even close to liberal at any time.
    So you agree that there are good reasons not to have a list. But, on the other hand, without a list one has to allow devil worshippers into the Christian church, antisemites into the synagoge, Christians in shows into the mosque.
    And all this without any natural necessity, but only because of that stupid law.
    In this case, forget about the whole argument. You know, argumentation always requires some assumptions about what the guy on the other side accepts - the assumptions you could use as the starting point for the argument.
    If effective violations of basic rights by bureaucratic chicanery is fine with you, there is no base for an argumentation with you.
    Made up or not, the only thing which matters is if I win. Of course, if it is fine with you that the police will force Christians to allow Satanists into their churches, this attempt has failed.
    The point of such artificial examples is that they allow to discuss the basic principles in a much more clear form. In reality, 243 other conflicting aspects will be relevant too, while the artificially simplified example avoids such complications.

    Anyway, given your "If so, that's fine with me" about the violation of liberal principles, why do you participate in this discussion about liberal principles?
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The context is you repeatedly using your sense of decency to guide your reasoning in what laws the government should enforce.
    To repeat: The freedom to offer and/or accept an employment contract was what was denied - that, freedom of contract, is among the civil rights and liberties you labeled "fundamental".
    It's called "racial discrimination" for a reason. You've been handed several particular cases, including the truck driving job example. Here's another:
    The redlining of black mortgage applicants in Chicago, Illinois, in 1960.
    That is not true of any theory of governance, as the example of the locked room should have demonstrated to you. The question of whether a person possesses the right and liberty to leave a room hinges on physical fact, and someone locking you into a room is violating your civil rights and liberties regardless of whether or not you are legally permitted to leave, whether or not you own the door and the lock, etc.

    The question of whether or not rights and liberties are actually possessed is central to liberal government. You seemingly have no problem recognizing this in regard to property rights, which the slightest diminution of in fact leads you to panicky conniptions about having lost them all.
    The ordinary reality of racial discrimination in the US is now a "wild fantasy".

    Why? Because if it isn't, you have a problem with your supposed "liberal" theory.
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    There is no legal obligation to remove your shoes. And if mosque officials ask you to leave because you will not remove your shoes, then you have a legal obligation to leave. Nobody says you must, absolutely, remove your shoes.

    When you try to split hairs as finely as your ridiculously dysfunctional botchery of liberty would, you also so oblige yourself. There is no legal obligation to remove your shoes. There is a legal obligation to not be disruptive.

    And refusing to remove your shoes, if the imam is so inclined to enforce the rule, is a disruption.

    And the problem won't be that you didn't remove your shoes; it will be that you didn't leave.

    Again, willful disruption is not the same as inherent existence.

    Remember, you're trying to compare being black to willfully disruptive behavior; therein lies your functional problem. Until you learn to cope with the fact that being black is not some personal offense aimed at you or anyone else, you're just making pathetic excuses for inexcusability.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No, there are not. ("It's too hard!" is not a good reason.)
    Even with a list one has to allow devil worshipers into the Christian church. There is no sane test/questionnaire you could use to keep people out of a church; Satanists might lie and come in anyway. (At least there is no sane way in the US; wherever you are from, they may have very effective thought police. If so, I am glad you are there and I am here.)
    Indeed. I have been assuming that you are both rational and understand US law. Clearly I am mistaken.
    No police will force Christians to allow Satanists into their churches. And so you fail anyway.
    Yet you attempt to use them to explain how rights are violated. Since they never occur, rights are never violated. Once that happens, get back to me.
    Because the purpose of the US government is not to make it easy to be a bigot. It is to protect individual rights. If you want to be a bigot, there are lots of other countries where such things are not only tolerated, they will make you quite popular.
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    You don't want to understand the point? As long as the satanists hides, he is not really a problem, because he behaves like a believer. If he is detected, he will be thrown out. No big deal. With that law, he has the right to come back with police support to pray openly for the devil in that Christian church.
    That means, the police will simply ignore the "rights and liberties" of the satanists?

    I don't fail, because I don't have to know US law, don't claim to know it, I take as given all what you write about the US law, and the result does not look nice in favor of US law. If this is your fault or the fault of real US law, who cares? US law is not really on-topic, the discussion is about classical liberal law vs American liberalism.
    You don't understand that not actual US law is the topic, but the discussion is about classical liberal law vs American liberalism? If you don't understand what the discussion is about, why do you participate?
    A liberal government would not be allowed to care if one is a bigot or not. The bigot is simply a particular human being. So, if that is true, it follows that either the purpose of the US government is not to make it easy to be a human being (in this case, it would be better to destroy it) or that it is not liberal.

    This is, of course, already a more civilized version of the law. The difference between liberal property law and the law you describe as US law nonetheless remains. Because for liberal property law simply the official asking you to leave would be sufficient, even without a reason.
    A triviality you don't have to explain me.
    You don't obviously understand the role of comparisons in discussions. Reasonable people always compare only different things. Maybe you confuse this with to equate?
    You obviously don't get the point that a liberal law would not care about what people believe. Neither their religion matters nor their political views. So, even if you despise the views of the racists, and consider their views as inexcusable, they would remain citizens with full rights.
    Real people in real states are never really liberal, and so law in a democratic state will never be liberal. If people hate some minority, they f... equal rights and will make laws which will harm that minority. If they would be honest, they would acknowledge this, and not make claims they are liberals. If they are liars, they will continue to name themselves liberals.
    There are good reasons to despise racists. But there are no good reasons to reject liberalism because it requires to give equal rights even to despicable racists. It is your problem that you fail to distinguish the liberal defense of equal rights even for those with despicable views from a defense of these despicable views.
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, you don't.
    That is true of US law. It doesn't care whether you are a bigot or not.
    That's true in the US as well.
    It doesn't, and they do.

    See? You have already been informed of all that - you simply rejected it.
    Now we're getting somewhere. This may be why you don't care that your formulation of liberal governance leads to direct conflict among its basic principles: it's because you think the whole idea is impossible anyway, so conflicts of principle don't matter.
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    In your fantasy. The reasoning is simply about liberal/libertarian law.
    Again, this is not a violation of freedom of contract. It is, instead, part of freedom of contract that those who give mortgage can refuse to give them. Freedom of contract does not give you a right to have some mortgage contract, thus, nothing which could be violated by not giving mortgage.

    Let's note that Wiki claims that "the specific practice called "redlining" began with the National Housing Act of 1934, which established the Federal Housing Administration(FHA)." So, here obviously legislation was involved. So, here it may be, indeed, the case that some violation of liberal principles of handling public property is involved. Renting taxpayers money only to whites, for good conditions, would be indeed a way to steal money from the black (taxation) and give it to the white (via nice mortgages).

    But freedom of contract is not involved here. Simply because freedom of contract does not give you a right to have a cheap mortgage contract.
    You know the meaning of the word "interpretation"? There is a big conceptual difference between the facts themselves and their interpretation. This does not mean that there is no connection. The connection may be, in some cases, very close, your "hinges on". This does not change the fact that the conceptual difference remains big.
    As if I would have claimed that there is no racial discrimination in the US. What I name wild fantasies are your claims that racial discrimination would prove some violation of equal rights. The very point is that everybody has, in a society with freedom of contract, the right to discriminate, to accept some people as clients, customers, friends, lovers, and to refuse others, with no obligation to explain the reasons.

    Something strange: In response to "- I take as given all what you write about the US law -" and some statements about liberal law iceaura writes:
    ????? So what? My statements have been about liberal law. Not about US law. If US law would be really liberal, that would be fine. I doubt. But this is a side issue.
    What to do if three persons make statements which logically contradict each other about the actual US law I'm not sure. Quite possible they are all correct, simply in some states one is correct, in other states another one. Anyway, actual US law is only an irrelevant side issue. The claimed problems of liberal theory could be much better explained and discussed by considering simplified hypothetical examples.
    It is the other way around. I care a lot about conflicts of principle. You, instead, seem to have no problem with mixing up completely different things which are, in principle, even in different categories, like facts and interpretations, and confuse liberal law principles and actual US laws.
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Supremacy ≠ Equality

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Click for distraction.

    And when it's private property without public square implications, you don't need a reason.

    With public square implications, there is a social contract in place: If you wish to participate in the public square, you must abide by its rules. One of those rules is equal protection. What you cannot do is claim protection under the law while denying it to others. If you wish to operate in the public square, then you must allow public square participants the opportunity to participate.

    You do realize you're arguing about make-believe?

    It's not a triviality, and quite clearly you do need reminding, since you tried comparing being black to a sex crime↑, and then to general willful disrespect↑. Being black and asking to participate in the public square is not the same as going to a church or mosque↑ just to start trouble.

    Start making sense.

    You asked the question what makes the principal, conceptual difference between willful behavior and being black.

    You obviously don't get the point that making sense would help.

    Again, start making sense. Supremacy is not equality. Nobody is being denied their equal rights if they are forbidden from denying other people's equal rights.

    You appear to be making what American jurisprudence regards as a suicide pact argument. Neither our Constitution in particular, nor civilized society in general, is a suicide pact. That is to say, civilized society does not owe its own destruction to the liberty of the people.

    And, yes, a lot of white supremacists, and Christian supremacists, and male supremacists ... okay, a lot of supremacists in general around these United States are really, really pissed off about that.
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    And the problem is that the state occupies a lot of things which happens on private property, using that "public square" as an excuse, even if not some general public is invited, but only a small part of it - namely a particular religious or ideological community.
    I reject make-believe liberalism which is in its essence anti-liberal. I doubt you have this in mind. A make-believe "Christian" who is in reality a satanist is not really a problem for a Christian church - it is despicable behavior but without harmful consequences, so nothing worth to argue a lot about it.

    I defend full freedom of contract, which would include the legal right to discriminate for whatever reasons, openly, on private property.

    I recognize that make-believe is a natural and reasonable strategy of defense against anti-liberal restrictions of liberal property rights. And there are, of course, also counter-measures against that strategy. And these counter-measures appear to be even more anti-liberal and rights-violating than the initial ones.
    Again, learn the difference between comparing and equating.
    Yes. And the very question already presupposes that there are a lot of differences. Some of them are secondary, some have a relation to some liberal principles, others not.

    For billvon the problem to find such a conceptual difference, and then to justify the law, was too difficult, and he had finally admitted that bureaucratic chicanery of the owners with requirements of explicit lists, which effectively destroy important liberal property rights, is fine with him. Means, he is not a classical liberal. (He may be nonetheless an American liberal, which is irrelevant for me.) So the question has served its purpose, we have clarified that billvon rejects classical liberalism.

    To show that you also reject classical liberalism would be another exercise, and I would use another example. So, you think that the owner of the mosque can tell the visitor "undress your shoes or leave", without any further explanation why? But to tell the visitor "leave", without any further explanation, would violate some rights of the visitor?

    There is a liberal principle of equality before the law - that means, the law should not make a difference between people based on their race, gender and so on. This is an obligation for law. It is not an obligation for the people, how to behave on their private property. It restricts only state employees, who, by signing their job contract with a liberal government, oblige themselves to follow these principles during their work. According to liberal principles.
    If I'm forbidden to deny other people's "equal rights", I'm probably a slave. Why? If I'm not a slave, I have freedom of contract. So I have the right to reject a wish to have a contract with me from one person and accept this wish from another person. So I have a right to make a difference, to discriminate between other people. So that they have no equal rights in relation of obtaining a contract with me. (why only probably? Because the meaning of the phrase "equal rights" remains unclear. No rights for all would be a case of equal rights too, so I would be forbidden nothing by this "forbidden from denying other people's equal rights", therefore I cannot mathematically prove that I would be a slave.)

    And, if you have not got this point: Liberal equality before the law means inequality in reality. Because people are different in reality, behave differently, own different property. And the state is forbidden, by the "equality before the law", to correct for these natural inequalities by making some advantages for the poor and so on.

    The argument that a classical liberal government would not be able to defend itself against destruction is indeed well-known and old. If you want to support it to reject classical liberalism, fine. In this case, you are also not a classical liberal. But, I would guess, an American liberal. And in this case, it would be clarified that there are really big and important differences between classical liberalism and American liberalism.

    In fact, I see in the particular question discussed with iceaura, namely the right to have white racist gated communities, no danger to a liberal state at all. Instead, my argument was that this reduces the conflicts between the races, because the most rabid racists (from above sides, btw) would tend to live in those separated gated communities, without conflict, instead of having conflicts all the time because they are forced to live together with people they hate. Less conflict means a more stable society.
    People around the US are not pissed of by what the US does at home. Who cares. They are pissed of because of the wars and regime changes and all the other criminal and terrorist things the US is doing around the world.
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It leads to denial of freedom of contract. In fact. In the US. Please accept this information, and adjust your reasoning accordingly.
    You continue to babble about irrelevancies. No one is suggesting that anyone has any right to any mortgage contracts at all. Your continual and repetitive deflection into that non-issue is perverse.

    Freedom of contract does mean that if someone wants to give you a cheap mortgage contract, and you want to accept it, the two of you are free to make that contract. It means that willing people can make contracts with each other. That is what was denied by white racial discrimination in the examples I provided - such as the redlining by Chicago banks, etc.
    I made no such claim. I claimed that racial discrimination was a means of denying people equal civil rights and liberties under the law, in the US. I was informing you of an historical fact, not "proving" anything.
    They don't. Your reasoning is mistaken. Revisit your errors of comprehension, making sure you understand why and how all those statement can be simultaneously true of US law, and fix them - then you can make reasonable and cogent claims about "American liberalism", an area of ignorance for you at the present time
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2016
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, I'm unable to follow your plea, because it is incompatible with my basic principles to accept an "information" which is simply wrong. Freedom of contract is known to give nothing to those who, for whatever reason, find nobody who agrees to cooperate with them. But this is in no way a denial of freedom of contract, but a natural boundary.
    If you think something is irrelevant, simply don't comment on it. If you do not argue that there is no right to any mortgage contracts, you have to explain in more detail why you think that blacks getting no or worse mortgage contracts would violate something you name "equal rights and liberties". Please take into account that I try hard to interpret, in a meaningful way, some claims which I would, probably, better simply reject as meaningless babble. Like the following:
    This is, without details which explain which right is denied here, how, by which law, simply meaningless babble. I could, in the same way, simply refer you Thomas von Aquino for everything. As a decent human being, I have tried to fill the many empty places you would be obliged to clarify by some own guesses, a method which usually improves a discussion, but here it seems to fail. So, ok, let's change this. That means, I now have to reject such one-line-nonsense as nonsense which shows nothing. As a consequence, you have not provided any example for your claims of violations of rights.
    And, as far as some private banks were obliged to refuse such contracts, based on some state regulation, I completely agree that this regulation violates freedom of contract and would have to be rejected in a liberal government. The liberal solution would be simply to cancel this particular racist regulation, as a law which is in contradiction with equality before the law. Once a liberal solution for this problem exists, your mortgage example is irrelevant.
    Ok, I can as well inform you that 3+3=6. Why you make such completely irrelevant claims? I have never claimed that there was no racial discrimination, neither that US law was liberal at some moment, nor that racists were all liberals or so.
    Maybe. But once you don't provide arguments to show this, this is irrelevant babble of a loser.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    For the fifteenth time: the denial was of contracts otherwise agreeable and willing, on both sides. You keep trying to bring in that silly irrelevancy of unwilling contractors - why?
    The right denied was freedom of contract. Black people (and non-racist whites) were prevented from making contracts between willing parties.
    Once again: the denial was of the freedom to make the contracts. Freedom of contract was denied - physically prevented, as by a locked door. No particular consequence of that loss of freedom of contract, such as any inferiority of the contracts that were made, was involved in my posting.
    No basis in State regulation was involved. I specifically noted that, in my posting. You have been informed of that several times now.
    You have claimed that allowing white racial discrimination in commercial dealings with the US public would not deny civil rights and liberties under liberal law - such as freedom of contract - to anyone. In that you were mistaken - it did, and would again, in the US.

    Until you incorporate that fact into your theory, you do not understand American liberalism.
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Nope. They treat satanists and Christians the same here. Both have rights and liberties. Both must respect the law in regards to private property.

    You may be having trouble here because you are not used to the tradition of freedom we have here. It's not that complex, but for someone who has experienced only authoritarian governments, it may be confusing.
    OK. Then I will take your ignorance into account in the future. (It does explain your failure.)
    Well, it was about that, but you then made it about a specific example with respect to US law, a law you admit you do not understand. You have then argued passionately for an outcome that makes no sense, and does not mesh with existing US laws. Perhaps learning about a topic before making that topic a central example in your argument would be wise.
    You are correct. Liberal governments do not care if one is a bigot or not, as long as they obey the law. And here in the US, that is what we have.
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Because there was the issue of unwilling racist motel owners forced to contract blacks once their motel is open to whites they don't know personally, thus, is open to some "public". Or those photographs forces to serve a gay marriage. I don't remember that you have clarified that you oppose these violations of freedom of contract.

    If there would be cases of willing contractors on both sides, it sounds like a violation of freedom of contract, but I have yet to see the details.
    Don't whine. Once there is no link to "your posting", so that I cannot evaluate the context, this is all I can say. Of course, I know the US is full of evil racists, full of laws incompatible with liberal principles, so such things may happen, I have no doubt. What is your point of mentioning such trivialities? What does it tell us about liberal/libertarian law principles?
    Maybe. Once you give no link, I cannot verify this.
    Feel free to prove this. Up to now, everything you have presented was irrelevant. Please note, any of the following would be irrelevant:

    1.) Any state/federal regulation which forbids some contracts, because such regulation anyway violates freedom of contract.
    2.) Any cases of aggressive behavior of some racists, which would be illegal in a liberal society. Independent of the question if they would be legal somewhere in the US at some time, or if they have been illegal but not persecuted because law enforcement was full of racists. Irrelevant because there is no disagreement that such behavior is bad.
    3.) Any whining about blacks not getting some jobs/contracts, without further evidence that freedom of contract was violated. Say, that there were people who have liked to make such contracts, and descriptions of the reasons why they have been, finally, unable to make this contract. If such cases, with reasons, are given, (1) and (2) have to be checked if they apply to these reasons.
    4.) Any reference to "I have already given this" without a link to the place where you have done this.
    It is not my aim to understand American liberalism. I have never had any problems to understand the motives of the people to support various totalitarian ideologies. The discussion is about something different, namely about classical liberal/libertarian law theory, and that (and how) it differs very much from American liberalism.
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Nope what? Something wrong with the description of what the police will do, according to the law? In this case, describe what the police will do. That you can describe what the police will do in a nice way I know, no need to present this ability.
    First, don't speculate about what I know. Second, the speculation is completely off. Except if you include almost all of the world, including Germany, into "authoritarian government".
    The argument is about laws which clearly violate classical liberal principles but are supported by some defenders of American liberalism. Some of them make a fuss about such laws being actual US law, which is not at all relevant. I take the examples given simply as examples of imaginable law codes. Because to distinguish classical liberal principles from American liberalism it is sufficient to consider also law codes supported by proponents of American liberalism, which violate principles of classical liberalism. If these examples of imaginable law codes agree with real US law is not really the point for me. I know anyway that the US law is totalitarian horror, which makes the US the greatest gulag on Earth.
    Except that the US law (even if it may be in agreement with principles of American liberalism, as far as such principles exist at all, I see it as a diffuse totalitarian ideology with no principles at all) clearly violates classical liberal principles.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    What you do not know is read from your own posts, and not speculative.
    They were defenses of freedom of contract, not violations

    and you are not describing them accurately - no one is or ever was forced to contract with anyone they had individual reason to reject. They were only prevented from rejecting contracts on specific class grounds proven to lead to denial of civil rights and liberties - all other reasons for rejection, including personal whim and so forth, remain.
    As fifteen times before, there were, and it was.
    The proof is of course in the fact that as soon as people were allowed to make them (the racists having been curbed by law), they did. All over the US.
    Or is it your contention that every motel stay by a black person in the Confederacy since 1964 has been an imposition on an unwilling white racist?
    They (the civil rights laws and Constitutional provisions under discussion) do not violate classical liberal principles - you are in error about that.
    You have been informed of a physical reality, concerning a matter of which you are confessedly ignorant, by those who are not. You have been offered several examples, and a great deal of evidence, which you simply denied when you did not willfully rephrase and deflect it. Now you demand "proof". And at that ridiculous juncture, I remember that the entire matter was never more than an illustration in the first place - an attempt to make an argument you were having trouble following easier for you to grasp.

    Take it or leave it, it was never more than an example - the central matter is that the possibility of it exposes the flaw in your formulation of liberalism: you cannot incorporate certain physical realities into what is supposed to be a theory of governance, a theory that is supposed to guide actual, real life government. In particular, when physical reality combined with your formulation of "ownership" and "contract" leads to direct conflict between the basic civil rights and liberties of different citizens under the law, so that your supposed liberal government cannot govern all its citizens according to its own fundamental principles, you have no recourse.

Share This Page