The Glade 4.0

No it is not a contract between the business and society. Absolutely not. Fundamentally incorrect.

First of all society isn't an entity that can consent, it isn't moral actor. It is the relative sum of the moral actors in it each of whom has the ability to consent to contract or refuse.

A business is offering goods or services according to its criteria to provide them. Thats it.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No one forced or coerced them into establishing their business.

I believe it's best for the market to sort this stuff out; don't wanna serve gays in your restaurant/airline/Christian strip club, fine, sure, whatever. Enjoy the lack of business from not only those clientele you're refusing to serve, but also the fun times public opinion of bigotry will visit upon your door. That's a "perfect-world" scenario. Obviously, the people of New York do not feel the same. The couple in question chose to open their business and thus adhere to the laws that were in place when they made the decision to start running the business.

If you're arguing for zero restrictions on business whatsoever, pull up a chair...you'll be standing for a long time if you're trying to get me to agree to that.

*pulls up*

Why do you think there should be any restrictions on businesses over those that restrict all moral actors from infringing on the rights of others?

What perceived benefit do you see that will come from regulating these, and at what cost?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmo:

States do have rights. The Federal government may or may not -- we can debate that point. States, however, have rights.

_________________

Nope. Individuals have rights. Organizations can have authority, power, and responsibilities but not rights.

States have the responsibility to protect the rights of the people, have the power to do so and the authority in pursuance of that cause.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

States have rights. That issue was established long before we even had a Constitution and was one of the primary reasons for abandoning the Articles of Confederation. The Federal Government has powers, authorities, duties, and responsibilities, but not rights. States, on the other hand, as the collective body of their constituent citizens have rights, something reflected at 3 specific points in the Constitution and well established by the surrounding literature. Had the States no rights under the Constitution, the Civil War would not have any significant philosophical or legal conundrums associated with it.

_________________

"legal rights" are not the same as "rights". These "legal rights" just define the autonomy the states have apart from the Federal. Rights are universal things while these constructs exist only as a legal fiction within the framework of our laws.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Not so. A state is a collective unit formed upon mutual agreement by a large enough body of people that they choose to establish a governing mechanism, its power structure, and its associated responsibilities and rights. They are not a legal fiction so much as an express enumeration of rights conceded to the state by the people choosing to form it. A state has the collective rights of its citizens; its constituent peoples are responsible for its existence and at some point agreed to create the entity known as the state. That this is complicated by the realities of American history, at least as you interpret it, matters little. Each individual state exists by will of its constituents and possesses the rights those constituents ceded to it for their greater collective good.

I realize you believe that citizenship requires positive consent and individual agency, but that's not been a reality for millennia, Elmo.

_________________

"Large enough" Oh how quaint. Appeal to popularity. How many people that aren't you do you feel should be able to enter you into contracts Khross?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The reality is simply that people are used to being oppressed and violated in this fiction called nationalism. It's a shame you're arguing the continuation of what is at best just a traditional misconception.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

There's no appeal to popularity, Elmo. No government exists except by the consent of the governed. That's a simple fact you have issues accepting. I'm more than willing to engage you on the notion of inalienable rights that exist as some sort of cosmic reality, but the truth is: there aren't any. Morality, ethics, rights, and other such intellectual constructs are precisely that -- constructs. Rights, at least as you argue them, are logical abstractions of biological imperatives (for the most part). Life exists. Life has purpose in the larger scope of existence as we know it. Life has purpose in all of its various forms. Consequently, you assume that because a person in born, they have a right to life. You do not, however, follow some particularly stringent Buddhist philosophy that extends the right to life to all living things.

_________________

"There's no appeal to popularity, Elmo. No government exists except by the consent of the governed." Now you contradict yourself. It doesn't have consent of the governed if all it takes is a "mutual agreement by a large enough body of people that they choose to establish a governing mechanism". That isn't consent of everyone governed. That is a large enough group to form a system of violence that is large enough to not be stopped by others. I'm pretty sure Pol Pot did not have consent of the governed or even "mutual agreement by a large enough body..." yet it was a government. You're confusing not choosing to rise up to revolution as consent. If a car dealer asks if you want to buy the entire lot and you don't say no - you have not entered into a contract.

Right to life, as all rights, exists for moral actors. If a dolphin can choose good or evil it has rights. Government is not a moral actor. Government has no rights. It has no right to life, no liberty, no right to property or privacy.

The rest of your paragraph is irrelevant. By arguing that states have rights you've already agreed that rights exist.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmo:

No government exists except by the consent of the governed. That's a point blank fact. More to the point, those individuals who oppose the creation of a new government have some biological imperatives they need to follow.

1. They can leave, or attempt to leave as the case may be.
2. They can resist, or attempt to resist as the case may be.
3. They can die, which is the likely outcome of options 1 and 2.

Death is always an option. Just because you don't agree with the conditions of consent, assent, or dissent in this situation does not mean they do not exist. We are talking about human constructs, and no government exists except by the consent of the governed. People very frequently will not choose death when it is the only option that evades whatever it is they don't want to face. They tend to face their fears and acquiesce before they die. That doesn't mean the choice doesn't exist; it doesn't mean the choice is one I particularly want people to face. It is, however, a choice.

Those who choose to acquiesce to violence are giving their consent. They chose not to die. They chose to accept one outcome over another. They chose not to support enough force to prevent the eventuality they are facing. All along the way, they chose. They chose and they chose and they chose and they chose and they chose, until they faced a situation in which they didn't. Unfortunately, most situations in which someone fails to make a choice are very small and very localized. No one is oppressed unless he or she chooses to be oppressed. No one is a victim unless he or she chooses to be a victim. People can be victimized, but being a victim is a choice. People can be oppressed, but being the oppressed is a choice. Options exist even when people do not exercise them.

You want Elmostan to be a reality? I suggest you read Interracialism and Christian Community in the Postwar South: the Story of Koinonia Farm. There are some lessons for you to learn in that bit of history.

That said, you've conceded any attempts at logical discussion, as we have yet to agree on the definition of the term rights. States have rights within the ontological construct that governs our nation. That's not up for debate. If you want to argue that said definition of rights is inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise problematic, you'll first have to make your case and state your definition. Me making a statement within an obvious structural framework is not a concession of your definition of rights or their material existence outside any such ontological creation.

_________________

I propose that Khross is entirely full of ****.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... ution.html

It should be easy enough to point out specific passages that grant rights to the states. It's not a long document.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Consent is not given when coercion exists. Neither I nor you consent to giving a mugger our wallet when the other option is serious bodily injury. You very well know there is no willful agreement when under duress. Simply because choice exist does not imply consent, false analogy all over the place Khross. By your standard rape can't happen if the attacker is threatening the victim.

I've got a backlog of 40+ books at the moment can you tell me more about where it goes to see if its worth adding? I have a hard limit of 50 to-reads.

I'll not live to see a society like Elmostan Khross and you and I both know it but engaging in false analogies and appeals to popularity doesn't help. If you were most other people I'd have assumed your choice of "consent" was simply a mistake of language but you know better.

You also seem to be doing what many other do and confuse the functional reality with moral philosophy. Because governments do X does not mean it is right for governments to do X. Because humans react Y to X does not mean that they should (and specifically does not mean they consent to X).

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Corolinth:

Article IV, Amendment IX, Amendment X, quite specifically. The Constitution is a negative rights document, hence the two disclaimers in the Bill of Rights. The Commerce Clause and Full Faith and Credit clauses also establish, implicitly, that States have rights within the scope of the Constitution. As Elmarnieh has not dispensed with that as a starting point for the discussion of rights in the United States, I would assume that the Constitution still applies. If he wants to argue higher order issues, he'll need to start with his definition of rights and explain why he is attaching them to moral actors only. And, to that end, he'll need to explain his source of universal, fixed morality.

_________________

I now propose that Elmo is entirely full of ****.

Elmo, would you care to refute the text of the United States Constitution, or present the case that the aforementioned articles do not establish that the States have rights?

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Coro, I really appreciate you taking up the role of facilitator, here. Calling out each party in turn and adjudicating when they have demonstrated their claim is not full of **** is quite helpful.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I thought we'd try something new. If you like, you can be entirely full of ****, next. As of right now, the committee recognizes the honorable delegate from wherever the **** Elmo lives.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Can I have an honorary full-of-shit card?

Elmo:

If you want to discuss moral philosophy, you need to start ponying up definitions, starting points, and a moral framework. Otherwise, we're stuck operating with the governing constructs of the current status quo.

_________________

Lets focus on consent Khross for now Khross. As you didn't attempt to rebut that consent cannot exist without coercion and must be affirmative it would then become very easy to dismiss the Constitution as no one alive had any input in accepting it.

But that is boring, too easy, and doesn't get to the real meat of this apparent disagreement (can't tell if you're just being Khrossish or if you actually disagree) which seems to be that rights only apply to moral actors.

So why do you think that the fundamental element in a moral philosophy can apply to non moral actors?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Coro - *hugglebubble*

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

If you choose to live in the United States or any of its owned territories, you choose to abide by the laws. If you don't like it, you can leave and move to a lawless area in the world (where incidentally you will probably be very alone). There is no coercion involved.

So your proposition is that the act of being born (that one has no control over) is implicit consent to the state of things that will be enforced on you?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville