Whatever you may think of Rand Paul...

[reverendjeremiah]

There is no civil liberty I know of to either let someone (a) trespass on someone else's property, or (b) tear up someone else's property and get away with it. You keep saying racism will "flourish" and yet you give no proof.

I gave you the sign breaking thing a long time ago. No need to drag it out.
My proof that racism will flourish is the hundreds of years of open hostile racism in America. Newt Gingrich just recently called Obama "the food stamp president". Even the Catholic church called out just recently to the Republican party to ask them to stop skirting around racism. The borders are unevenly enforced. The canada border is barely enforced, while the Mexican border is always the big issue. I know you live in a nice place Adrian, but down here in the america south the big issue about the Mexican border is to keep those "nasty wetbacks" out of our neighborhoods and away from our white daughters. You can live in your denial, but I live AMONGST the racist reality of America. Tea Party Americans want to force the schools to not teach about our founding fathers ownng slaves. Right wingers want the civil war to be taught in schools that it was over "states rights" instead of slavery. Man, I can fill this entire page full of evidence that not only racism WILL floursih, but that it IS flourishing. When the topic of Welfare is brought up, its always about black people, even though it is the whites who make up its majority of beneficiaries.
As far as tresspass on someone property, man you do not know the laws when it comes to civil rights do you? Lets just say I am a racist living here and now in America. I decide to make my own little country store. A black guy walks in. Even though I do not like blacks, and definitely do not want them on my property, I cannot kick them out of my store just for being black or I will get fined. I have to have a legitimate excuse (tearing the place up, being rude, disrupting other cutomers). So yes, you DO have a legislated right to trespass on someons property IF they are a business opened up for commerce. Or, another way to put it, an owner cannot kick a black person out of his store for "trespassing" just for being black. Being black in a racists store is not defined as "trespassing" no matter how much you want it to be otherwise Adrian.
You CANNOT have a free market when people are allowed to refuse service merely based on race. If you are going to conduct business in a free market, then you cannot be allowed to refuse service based on something nobody had a choice about (such as skin color). It has ceased to be a free market, and has been a special market for some, and a difficult market for others.

They don't exist in the "cosmos"; they exist inherently due to logic: Everyone has the negative right to life, because nobody has the (positive) right to take someone's life away. Lack of inherent positive rights logically leads to the existence of inherent negative rights. Note that these rights are still subjective, because they still require human understanding (and use of logic) to exist. Thus negative rights pose no problems to me as a moral nihilist, since they are not objective.

Logic my ass. Besides, first you say they dont exist in the cosmos, then you say they exist due to logic, which means they exist in the cosmos if you are correct. The thing is, thoug, you are not correct. there is nothing logical in suggesting that since murder is an active pursuit (or "right") then therefore its opposite is a logical and provable moral of the universe. There is not one single shred of proof that you can show that says humans have a right to life.

In fact I will be specifically requesting in our formal debate that you produce evidence that a right to life exists. Not some play with words like you are doing now "Since murder is bad, therefore non-murder is good". It is still nothing more than YOUR opinion, and not an inherent right that exists in the cosmos. As a moral nihilist, you should already be aware of this.

Let me show you how screwed up your logic is on this post. You may suggest "A black man doesnt have a right to buy a sandwich in a white mans restaurant if that white man doesnt like black people, it matters not if they are starving.". Then you may suggest "Non-murder is a non-objective right. People have a right to life". how can you on one hand say that people have a right to life, but on the other say that people do not have a right to sustain that life? I highly suggest you reconsider your contradictory approach to this so-called "right to life" that you hold, as it appears to be very heavily opinionated...and hey, they happen to exactly match your personal opinion of things. If I was black, you mean that I should accept your concept of "right to life, but no right to sustain it"? Absolutely not. I would call you a damn fool and a stealth racist.

Again with the "flourishing". If I admit that my optimistic view is speculation, will you admit that your pessimistic view is speculation, and drop it and move on? I have no hard evidence that racism won't flourish, but I certainly think the fact that your country managed to elect a black president and pass civil rights legislation seems to be more on my side than yours.

Dont let the fact that a black man has been elected that Racism in America has all of a sudden disappeared. You apparently have not been following the ongoing story of Obama. Birthers are the first to come to mind. I wish I had a dollar for everytime I have heard "No nigger is my leader! America has no president right now!".. My view is not specualtion. I have mounds and MOUNDS of evidence I can present to show that racism is alive and well, and that it may have actually grown after the election of Obama. Civil rights legislation was HARD won, and it was such a battle that it split the democratic party almost in half. You just cant hold up a black president and legislation as if it went through "like that". It didnt. MANY people died and lost their livelyhood (black and non-black) trying to have equal rights passed. All of the arguments you are using, such as the trespass laws, were used extensively to battle against civil rights. So naturally people who see your arguments who know the history of American civil rights would look at your arguments with a slanted head, especially when you say you arent racist (which I believe). Go to any racist board and you will see how very popular your arguments are on those boards (niggermania, stormfront, etc..). The evidence is NOT on your side, and you are being a naive idealist in my opinion.

As to your questions, if they are trespassing, then they can either leave or be arrested. It matters not if they are starving; the property owner has rights. Your scenarios keep getting more and more ridiculous, and you offer no proof that they would ever even happen.

So the food owners have a right to refuse service to my black ass just because its black, but they dont have a right to just take my life for it. So the whites cant openly seek out and slay black people for being black, but they can conspire together to starve them out of the community. As I said before, your contradictory beliefs are contradictory. Your beliefs are also contradictory to a true free market. a true free market means that all people must at least have an equal chance to enter the market. You, on the other hand, support backdoor legislation to stop that from happening. dont you dare call them rediculous as, like I have said before, many people lost their livelyhood and died to get beyond what you are suggesting. Also, I might as well include that if you frequent racist forums youwill see how the effects of racism are downplayed as "silly", "ridiculous".

I do not support racism; I do support the free exchange and expression of ideas. One of those ideas happens to be racism; another happens to be that only Christians will go to heaven. I don't support either, but I support the rights of people to hold them and enforce them as they wish on their own property. I have not put the law in anyone's favour; minorities are perfectly entitled to put "non-whites only" signs up too. This is the only system where favouritism is distinctly not a problem. In your society, governments legislate against ideas that they don't agree with. At first, it seems like a good idea, but where do you let them stop? What if your government passed a law that nulled the first ammendment, and made Christianity the state religion? The point of letting all religions be equal under the law is because it is fair. Don't complain that my scenario is unlikely; I find yours equally so.

You are mixing dogma with civil rights when it comes to this topic. By saying minorities are perfectly okay to put up "non-whites" only further illustrates how naive you are about this subject. You say my scenereo is unlikely, yet all I have done is point out very recent history. You, on the other hand, seem to want to repeat that history, but suggest that it would turn out differently this time.

The right to buy a sandwich does not exist (at least not in the form of a negative right), and even if it did I'd find it hard pushed to argue that such a right overrules the right of someone to allow / ban people from their private property. The difference with abortion is that the right to life (for the baby) exists as a negative right. Yes, the woman still has the negative right to deal with her private property (her womb in this case) how she wants, but as I've explained before, there is a conflict of rights. If abortion removed the baby without killing it, you would resolve the conflict perfectly; however, abortion is the killing of the baby, which violates one of the rights in the conflict. Some would argue this violation is acceptable; some argue it is not. I personally need to know the circumstances.

these "positive' and "negative" rights are still nothing more than human opinion, which are subject to change at the whim of the viewer. So a black baby has the right to life (a negative right), but does not have the right to sustain that life by eating (positive right). A racist son-of-a-bitch has a right to his property (a negative right), yet a woman doesnt have a right to her property known as her womb (positive right). The racist doesnt have a right to take life (positive right), but does have a right to force someone to starve to death (negative right).

Your "positive/negative" rights are merely a word play on what would normally be called "personal opinion".

Now, I must insist that you present evidence that a negative right for property owners exists in the cosmos.

No, it is not inherent.

No it is not logical.

PROOF THAT "NEGATIVE RIGHTS" ARE NOT INHERENTLY LOGICAL:
You are a submarine commander. The cooling system for your nuclear engine is broken and everyone in the ship will die of radiation poisoning if someone doesnt go into the highly radioactive area to fix the cooling system. There is no way for anyone to fix the problem without losing their life in slow, agonizing death. If your "negative right to life" is actually logical, then it would be immoral for the commander to order a crew member to fix the problem, as it would be equal to ordering someone to their death. I argue that logic is inhuman, as it ignores the individuality and emotions of humanity. According to you, it is WRONG for the commander to take away that crew members negative right to live by ordering him to his death. LOGIC, on the other hand, is quite clear in this situation; "one life lost for the safety of many lives." - your negative rights are merely an opinion, and not logically inherent in the universe.