Whatever you may think of Rand Paul...

[Violet]

I could say the same about you rev. At least I have arguments to back my morality up. Do humans have rights? Yes. Are unborn children humans? Yes. Should unborn children have rights? Yes.

People have their own lives, they live and breath on their own (at worst with the willfully granted support of another or a machine).

Parasites live wholly off of their carrier's body, and are incapable of living and breathing on their own until extremely late into the birth cycle. They do not even ask if the carrier will support them, they simply leech off of them.

People have 'rights'. Unborn children are not people (they are parasites). Should parasites have the right to ruin the body of a person who declines to support them in their transition from parasite to person?

I certainly don't think so. What's so special about a bit of human DNA and tissue? My dog is as much a person as I am... humanity is not either a requirement of personhood nor a guarantee of it.

[Tiberius]

As a nihilist, you should understand and openly admit this. As a nihilist you should be openly opposed to any type of government or any type of system period.

I'm openly opposed to most types of government both as a nihilist and as a Libertarian (minarchist). You should be aware by now that I support capitalism as an economic system, not as some government mandated and controlled entity (i.e. crony capitalism). I am completely against the government interfering with the economy. People should be able to interact with the economy in any way they want to; whether they set up small socialist / communist communities, or embrace the free market.

Citation needed on the claim that "morality" is needed "to some degree" for society to function.

No citation; just common sense. If you have a community that lacks any sort of moral compass, then whoever can kill / enslave the rest of the community fastest wins. You cannot prosecute thieves, rapists, or murderers without resorting to some sort of moral argument in order to back up your reason for prosecuting.

I challenge you to a formal debate on this. In no way have you shown that my position is indefensible

Agreed, and I look forward to it.

Okay, so now you have thrown an anti-racism activist in jail. Sure, it was the mans property according to legislation and if the laws are made that way then I go to jail. There is neither right nor wrong in this part of the discussion, merely clarifying the extent to which you will go to legislate this. Step one, if someone destroys a racist sign, you support them going to jail.

Them being an anti-racism activist has nothing to do with the jail term, or the reason why they were jailed though. This would be like arguing I'm being sexist or supporting sexism because I threw a female bank robber into jail.

Wrong. Dead wrong. A shop cannot turn away someones business or purchases merely for the color of their skin. There is legislation that can be shown to prove this. They have to have a legitimate reason other than prejudice.

Noted. Let me change my wording to "most reasons".

And when the mass majority of societys whites come together, not through the government, but by their mere property rights, they will oppress the minorities. By allowing the racism, and enforcing laws against those who actively oppose this, you have allowed racism to florish. Dont tell me that it will not happen. What you are describing is EXACTLY how America was for the longest time.
Step two: enforce racism through the back door through the government. By not SPECIFICALLY legislating racism, but instead calling it another, you have now supported racism in suberterfuge.

I find it very hard to believe that the majority of white people in any civilised country would come together and oppress the minorities. A lot of the reasons "racists" give for hating minorities is that they take all their jobs and get special status by the government. One could argue this isn't true racism, and whether a fairer society where the government doesn't rule on race would encourage them to be more accepting has yet to be seen.

I should also point out that black people in America won their freedom and their rights not by becoming the majority, but by convincing the majority that such treatment was wrong. It was white people who gave blacks their freedom and rights, and yet somehow you think it will be white people who take them away again? I severely doubt this.

Its shit like this that gives libertarians a bad name. This isnt civil libertarianism. This is support of the destruction of civil liberties through the back door. It can be compared to the creationism/Intelligent design afront to science. By changing the name, and removing any mention of racism, you have allowed it to to flourish socially and economically...over something as idiotic as skin tone.

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.

And you would passively sit back and allow such racism to flourish? That isnt true. You said yourself you would have no problem with the police breaking out the dogs and the firehoses on a group of blacks trying to enter such an establishment veiling it in a slightly racist remark of " depends on how violent the group of blacks is". So if the group is non violent, then you would let them in the "whites only" building, or you would still support them being arrested? And if they refused to leave because they are starving and all the other shops refuse to serve them food then what? Yup, out come the dogs and the firehoses.
This is NOT libertarianism. This is NOT civil libertarianism.
And when all of the food stores have "whites only" signs up, what are the blacks to do? Starve or leave the city? Honestly dude, you are supporting racism through the back door, which means you support racism without wanting to be called a racist. America is FULL of people who make these same arguments you do. When sober and in public they are very careful of letting their thoughts be known. After getting a few beers in them, they start railing "nigger this...nigger that...I wish this bar was whites only..." Now, Im not saying that YOU go off saying "nigger this or that" but you have DEFINITELY put the side of the law in their favor all in the name of greedy property rights above all else.

Someone owning a peice of paper saying they own land, to you, is justification for them to be the biggest prick in the world.

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.

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.

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.

What? Sure. Have at it. Please show me the evidence that inherent negative rights exist in the cosmos and NOT merely in the opinions of the human who holds them.

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.

So basically rift, to Tiberius, A white man owns his store, and can hang "whites only" on his premesis, and even have the police forcefully remove non-violent blacks from the store who merely want to buy a sandwich and have them imprisoned..

...BUT...

Even though a woman owns her own womb, she is NOT allowed to have the baby booted out of her very own body. In fact if she tries to boot the unwanted baby from her body, Tiberius is all for imprisoning her and forcing her to keep the baby until she goes into labor.

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.

..and that is where you are wrong. You automatically call it a killing. Its not to the mother. All the mother wants is to get rid of the baby from her body, and if the mother had an option that DIDNT kill the baby dont you think they would choose it?

It is not the mothers fault that the technology is limited, nor is it the mothers fault that the baby is killed in the process.She merely does not want the baby. Just like you dont support racism, you just want white people to hang up "whites only" signs" Accusing the woman of murder is over simplifying the system, and I will be calling you on this in the official debate we will be having.

If you accuse a pregnant woman having an abortion of murder, then I can just as easily accuse you of being a racist for supporting "whites only" signs. You dont get to have your cake and eat it too.

If you are not a racist for supporting a persons freedom for kicking blacks off their property, then abortion is not murder because the woman is merely kicking the unwanted phoetus from her body. It is not the "whites only" business owners fault if the black man dies from starvation, then it is not the womans fault if the baby cannot survive outside of her womb.

Best prepare for it bro...this is your only warning...abortion is one of my best debating topics. I have converted several pro-life evangelical people to pro-choice and I wear them conversions openly as a badge of honor. You are not going up against a n00b on this topic.

Whether you like it or not, abortion involves the killing of a baby. There are other ways to define it of course, but before the abortion takes place, the baby is alive, and afterwards, it is dead. At some point during the abortion, the baby is killed. There is no getting around this fact, even if you object to the wording.

You seem to use non-sequiturs to make up a point. It does not follow that supporting the freedom of a racist to kick black people off their property makes you a racist too. In abortion, the one doing the abortion (NOT neccesarily the mother) is killing the baby. The mother is certainly implicated in the baby's killing if she agreed / paid for the abortion to happen, but just like hiring a hit squad to kill someone doesn't make you a murderer, paying someone to perform an abortion on you doesn't either. A counter example to your charge that I am a racist would be something like this:

"If you support the freedom of people to own and use guns, and some people use guns to murder others, then you are a murderer."

That statement should be as absurd to you as it is to me and everyone else, but it is exactly the same structure you are using to level the charge of racism. Yes, I support the freedom of people to kick people off their land. Yes, some people will use that freedom in racist ways. No, in no way does that make me a racist.

Oh, and you may have converted several pro-life people, but I converted myself from pro-choice to pro-life not too long ago. I don't expect you to change your mind, and I don't expect to have my mind changed. I expect to educate people on the logical arguments behind abortion, and why there is a distinct double standard that most people use when deciding the issue.

---

---

What if the pregnancy is a product of rape or incest (i.e., the woman did not herself wish to become pregnant)? That represents a very small percentage of the cases but, since it does happen, how do you respond to her plight? An unfortunate bit of luck, that? Since the human life inside her has the same right to life that she does, she must carry it to term regardless? (I am assuming arguendo that carrying to term will not kill her.)

Well first I wouldn't say that all instances of pregnancy because of incest are instances where the woman didn't wish to become pregnant. I'd also say that not all instances of incest result in majorly deformed babies.

However, this is one side of the issue which I still haven't completely made my mind up on. There are good arguments both for and against, but I guess what it really comes down to is at what point you define the life inside the womb as human, and whether we can violate the baby's right to life if it is the product of a violation of rights itself (in this case rape). Other considerations are whether the right to life means the right to a decent life (e.g. pain free), and whether we should abort babies who have little to no chance of lasting outside the womb, or will endure large amounts of pain due to their deformities.

So yeah, I'm honestly not sure where I stand, but I'd love to hear your opinion / arguments on the issue.

[reverendjeremiah]

I'm openly opposed to most types of government both as a nihilist and as a Libertarian (minarchist). You should be aware by now that I support capitalism as an economic system, not as some government mandated and controlled entity (i.e. crony capitalism). I am completely against the government interfering with the economy. People should be able to interact with the economy in any way they want to; whether they set up small socialist / communist communities, or embrace the free market.

I agree 100% with your concepts posted here. Im still a bit off on how you equate nihilism with even a little bit of government, but I am willing to nod my head at it. I agree that a LITTLE bit of council is required for humanity to get along and for progress reasons.
Im wondering how you feel about these topics: Monopoly, land ownership, and enforced safety measures (such as Osha, fire codes, etc..)

No citation; just common sense. If you have a community that lacks any sort of moral compass, then whoever can kill / enslave the rest of the community fastest wins. You cannot prosecute thieves, rapists, or murderers without resorting to some sort of moral argument in order to back up your reason for prosecuting.

To be honest with you, I usually have no problem with "common sense" as an answer. I realize it is very difficult to discuss such things...especially the way you explained "common sense". I agree 100%. Im not sure if it could be called "morality", but calling it "common sense" I am willing to nod my head at. You cant have a community if people steal, rob, kill, and cheat with no boundaries.

Agreed, and I look forward to it.

Ive already got an 800 word intro and still working. I promise you that I will be a good boy during the debate.

Them being an anti-racism activist has nothing to do with the jail term, or the reason why they were jailed though. This would be like arguing I'm being sexist or supporting sexism because I threw a female bank robber into jail.

Thats the point, and that is why it is racism being supported through the back door. Here in America many of the racists work on these angles. Im not calling you a racist, but they use the same angles: "Im not supporting whites only signs *wink wink* Im supporting property rights"..BTW, your example wasnt a good example. Throwing a black man who wants a sandwich in jail for walking into a "whites only" restaurant is clearly a more refined argument than the one you posted...at least respond to that fact.

I find it very hard to believe that the majority of white people in any civilised country would come together and oppress the minorities. A lot of the reasons "racists" give for hating minorities is that they take all their jobs and get special status by the government. One could argue this isn't true racism, and whether a fairer society where the government doesn't rule on race would encourage them to be more accepting has yet to be seen.

I should also point out that black people in America won their freedom and their rights not by becoming the majority, but by convincing the majority that such treatment was wrong. It was white people who gave blacks their freedom and rights, and yet somehow you think it will be white people who take them away again? I severely doubt this.

You dont live here in southern USA. Racists down here have all sorts of looney conspiracy theories and it is hard to keep up with all of them....more to come later...

[Draconic]

I believe in the separation of Church and State, and am especially wary of the State becoming a Church.

I don't believe that the Government can dictate morality any more than I believe some old book can. I also think that the last person who should be in the business of dictating morality is a politician or bureaucrat. This is why I agree with Paul's position that if laws like those must exist, that they should be created and enforced at a more local level. At least this way, if someone feels that their local government got it wrong, they have choices, different places they can go where laws are to their liking.

I'm also a firm believer in property rights. If I work hard to generate income, I own my money and should have full control over it. If I spend that money on opening a store, I should have full control over that store, and who I choose to do business with. If I don't want to associate with felons, Christians, blondes or people with funny glasses, I should have the right to my property that allows me to put up a sign and refuse service to those people. However, I would of course be financially burdened by the lack of revenue generated by my store, and may potentially go bankrupt... assuming I'm not "too big to fail," of course.

Since somebody brought them up, Jim Crow laws are a perfect example of the Federal Government's complete inability to dictate morality.

[Doubting Thomas]

I agree to a certain extent, but I don't agree with the "I should be able to refuse to do business with anyone I don't like." While I think you should have the right to refuse to do business with someone who is a nuisance, I don't think that anyone should have the right to prevent anyone coming into their business based on race, religion, gender, etc. I could see it easily being abused where I live, where the vast majority is Christian. I'd hate to not be able to buy groceries anywhere because all the stores require you to express belief in Jesus as your personal savior. I know in this bad economy that most places would be too competitive to do that, but I'd hate to see "Whites Only" signs being put up everywhere like in the 1950's, or even "Christians Only."

I could very easily see people in Oklahoma putting up "No Muslims" signs in their store windows.

[paintpooper]

I agree to a certain extent, but I don't agree with the "I should be able to refuse to do business with anyone I don't like." While I think you should have the right to refuse to do business with someone who is a nuisance, I don't think that anyone should have the right to prevent anyone coming into their business based on race, religion, gender, etc. I could see it easily being abused where I live, where the vast majority is Christian. I'd hate to not be able to buy groceries anywhere because all the stores require you to express belief in Jesus as your personal savior. I know in this bad economy that most places would be too competitive to do that, but I'd hate to see "Whites Only" signs being put up everywhere like in the 1950's, or even "Christians Only."

I could very easily see people in Oklahoma putting up "No Muslims" signs in their store windows.

I can see both sides of the issue, but the bigger question is why. Why would someone want to hurt their business by not allowing someone based on a belief or color or anything else that is arbitrary. It is not logical or rational in any sense. So why would/did people do it?

Well lets look at the case of the landlord who recently put up a "whites only" sign for her pool. Her reasoning was the girl used hair chemicals that would make the pool cloudy. Well that has nothing to do with skin color, the landlord is clearly ignorant, because a white women or man can also use the same hair chemicals. A "Must shower" would be a logical sign to use.

Many people are uneducated and ignorant. You would have to ask these shop owners why they would discriminate because of color or sexuality and the reasoning behind it, most likely they won't be able to formulate a rational reason for it. They are generalizing due to stereotypes given out by the media. Media and government need to stop the propaganda against certain groups of people.

(Hypothetical) Do people in Oklahoma have a problem with Muslims coming into their store and terrorizing them? Is it because that Oklahoma guy has met hundreds of Muslims and every single one of them fucked him over some how? I doubt it.
Let the ignorant fucks put the sign up, they can deal with the backlash, and it wouldn't be some crooked police force either because their would be no law for or against it.
The government can't dictate morality only the people can. And the people of the community can decide the shop owners fate in Oklahoma, not bureaucrats sitting in Washington trying to push a certain agenda.

[Draconic]

I agree with PaintPooper, but at the same time realize that there would be some injustices in some of the more rural points in the States. Some people may be denied service, some people's lives may be made more difficult because of this. I'm not so ignorant to say that it wouldn't occur at any point. However, while the Federal government would back away from these issues to let them be dealt with at a local level, the local governments would suddenly be stepping up to the plate to mitigate the damages.

Another reason to support the shift of responsibility is in accordance with the Constitution -- the Law to which we hold our government accountable. If we hold our government to these rules, and force them to respect our rights and individual liberties, we will be in a better position to draw our protection from it when needed, for instance, issues of Church and State come into play.

Hypothetically, there are other perks to delegating the powers to the states, including allowing the states to determine different methods for resolving problems. Some methods will work better than others, which other states can then adopt. Handling things locally like this is a great way to experiment and evolve our government's laws and enforcement options.

[Autumnlicious]

the local governments would suddenly be stepping up to the plate to mitigate the damages.

Let me stop you there. It was local governments that originally passed anti-black laws and resisted the Civil Rights Act to the bitter end.

Depending on local governments to accede to the averaged, sanitized standard of culture that federalism entails is like asking high school social cliques to accept standards of anything.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can see both sides of the issue, but the bigger question is why. Why would someone want to hurt their business by not allowing someone based on a belief or color or anything else that is arbitrary. It is not logical or rational in any sense. So why would/did people do it?

Because it didn't hurt their business all that much, was socially acceptable (and in some cases expected), and importantly, it was legal to do so. There's always somebody you can hang a sign up for. Maybe it isn't "No coloreds allowed" anymore..maybe now it's muslims, as one poster pointed out. It's rare to see a moneyed demographic get turned away from stores. Also, far from the free market swooping in to help, when the "whites only" signs were up, specialists ran shops for coloreds, raking them over the coals for goods which could be cheaply bought across the street if it weren't for the signs.

So, there's our model, there's our case study. Before these laws, goods were unavailable or not competitively priced to minorities. Businesses still operated, "whites only" signs bankrupted no one. There was then (as there is now) an urge to discriminate based on imaginary/petty distinctions. They did it because they could, because people do things like that. The laws that compel businesses to provide services indiscriminately were good when they were written, they are good now.

[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.