"Social Justice" vs "The Individual"?

[casinopete]

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

But, as you described it, he is not merely "not selling to me". He is actively behaving in such away that denies my the ability to provide those things for myself.

---

But in the second part of my example, the wealthy group was merely "not selling," because they already owned everything that Bill was buying just to spite you.

A Clarification: I am not really arguing about the specific case of affirmative action, nor am I calling the principle of Individual Rights wrong. Rather, I am saying it is just a principle, not an absolute. It should be followed most of the time, but there are cases when the government must resort to social justice to best protect the freedoms of its citizens. I really think my example shows pretty solidly that such cases exist, and in fact, have existed, in the not too distant past.

[Samadhi]

Probably just a typo.

[Fried Egg]

CasinoPete

[Pablo]

Has anyone made the point that the only way government can "secure" someone's rights is by denying or limiting someone else's rights? That seems pretty key to me.

Also, there's a big difference between A)making it illegal to deny someone a job strictly because of race and B)requiring you to hire someone because of their race.

If these points were already made, I missed them.

[casinopete]

Originally posted by Fried Egg, emphasis mine:

---

But you're creating an artificial distinction between buying everything up and not selling to you. When taken as a whole, it could be seen as a an infringement of liberty.

---

Exactly my point. Using "individual rights" as an absolute guide will lead to limitations of liberty - which the government is supposed to be securing. This is the whole argument. The government is securing rights with its social justice laws, which is precisely what the government is supposed to be doing.

Originally posted by Fried Egg, emphasis mine:

---

In reality though, the search for social justice merely takes away choice and denies opportunity.

---

Situations like my example do exist in reality. I have friends from the NW corner of Iowa, and they report towns of all Dutch - except for one Mexican family, or all Dutch Reform - except for about 15 Catholics. And they've been perfectly frank that the entire town was pretty uncomfortable with the minorities (the religious split much more than the racial). It wouldn't take much of a push for them to suddenly shun the minority, or rather, it wouldn't take much if it weren't for laws dealing with the problem. And this is Iowa, afaik not one of the more racist states in the Union. I'm sure more dangerous examples abound in the deep South.

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

Say, for instance, a company already employed one male. It had another position to fill and, because of gender quotas it had to employ a woman. However, the best qualified person that happened to apply was male...

---

This example shows the failings of employment quotas. Obviously quotas are a stupid solution to the problem. But one very stupid specific idea arising from the ideals of social justice does not make social justice bad. Would the Libertarians seriously defend every crackpothead idea yelled by anyone claiming to be Libertarian?

[casinopete]

Should've previewed. Pablo covered what I was saying, and more clearly.

[Fried Egg]

CasinoPete

I still think you are misinformed if you believe all measures of "social justice" are passed in the intent of protecting individual rights (if they were, they wouldn't be called social justice).

We often hear of laws being passed that suppress individual rights for the benefit of society at large. As if society itself is an entity that matters. As if society is a entity that must have it's interests balanced against those of the individual. As if society's interests could diverge from that of the individual's.

"Social justice" is justice in the name of the society, not the individual. If it is really about the individual, why call it something else?

[casinopete]

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

I still think you are misinformed if you believe all measures of "social justice" are passed in the intent of protecting individual rights (if they were, they wouldn't be called social justice).

---

It is impossible to argue with someone who says, "there's other stuff that proves me right, you just don't know it yet." You are certainly right that I don't know of any law (social justice related or otherwise) that doesn't (by which I mean wasn't intended) to protect individual rights.

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

We often hear of laws being passed that suppress individual rights for the benefit of society at large.

---

I have not. I have no idea what laws you are talkig about.

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

"Social justice" is justice in the name of the society, not the individual. If it is really about the individual, why call it something else?

---

The name is important? I'm sure it's just a PR thing. "Social" gives images of a group working together, and "Justice" is always powerful at swaying people's hearts.

[Fried Egg]

CasinoPete

[Samadhi]

Pablo

[Samadhi]

Fried Egg

[casinopete]

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

Well, the article I linked to provided several examples including quotas and various trade union activities.

---

Re: quotas:

Originally posted by Pablo:

---

Also, there's a big difference between A)making it illegal to deny someone a job strictly because of race and B)requiring you to hire someone because of their race.

---

Re: trade union activities:

In the author's example, the Bove case, Bove was imprisoned for his illegal activities. The laws already support that terrorism, even when committed by "unionists" is illegal. I'm quite sure that people who threaten to dump poisonous chemicals as part of a strike in the US would be prosecuted as well. So I'm left wondering exactly which laws it is the author is decrying. Certainly I've been given nothing specific to look up and judge for myself. All the author does is say "this unionist broke the law" which doesn't make any sort of point that I can see.

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

The prohibition of drugs is an another example. Something that is prohibited, not because the person doing it is harming anyone else, but because of it's supposed harmful effects on society.

---

If by harmful effects on society you mean danger and/or damage, then that is a matter of rights. If instead, you mean some kind of moral thing... do you really think people are anti-drug "just because it's wrong?" I think most people, certainly most thoughtful people, who are opposed to legalization, are opposed because most drugs are dangerous, not only to the user, but the surrounding populace.

Clearly a lot of drugs are mislabeled and poorly understood, and some shady individuals use fear tactics to sway the populace, but that is a matter of dishonorable individuals, and there are "rights activists" who are just as shady. Again, this is a matter of denouncing a whole viewpoint because of the actions of a single adherent (or a few adherents).

[casinopete]

and Samadhi: please stop being so childish.

[Pablo]

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

Well, I don't think that's the case.
Could you provide an example of what you mean?

---

There are a million examples. Here a couple obvious ones:

Right: Government deems that workers have a right to a smoke-free workplace.
Limitation: People can't smoke at work.

Right: All children have access to public education.

Limitation: Citizens, even those with no children, must pay for this, limiting their financial options.


Right: Everyone has the right to practice religion as they choose.

Limitation: Public educational facilities may not include prayer in their activities.

Keep in mind, I'm only talking about rights as the government "secures" them. I'm not talking about the rights you are born with, whatever those are. My point is that when government steps in and gives rights to someone, they inevitably take rights away from someone else. Virtually everything government does limits someone's rights. The more government, the less rights.
I believe you are born with certain rights and the government really only has the power to take them away. Government isn't the source of rights.
Don't know if that satisfies your challenge or not.

[Samadhi]

MOH/BPP: I see what you're saying now. I concur.

[Pablo]

What's MOH/BPP?

[Samadhi]

Casinopete:
What? Obviously that's the only way you could be considered wrong. I mean it couldn't be that you're a complete asshole who's incapable of clearly explaining himself. It couldn't be that you fuck up and say shit that you don't think about and when people try to pin down what the fuck you're talking about you blame it on them and say shit like "Clearly there is no value in continuing to discuss this" not realizing that ironically that's true because you have your head so firmly up your own ass.

Oh no, couldn't be. Carry on, oh wise one.

[Samadhi]

[Pablo]

Um, he, I mean "I" went, um, fishing, yeah, fishing. yeah, that's it. I just got back from fishing.

[casinopete]

Samadhi:

Strangely, no one else seemed to misunderstand what I was saying. Nor have they produced exaggerated comparisons to things I didn't say in order to "prove" I'm an idiot. Nor have they started cussing and ridiculing for no apparent reason. Nor have they been acting childish, posting sarcastic one-liners that fail to pertain to the discussion in any way.

[Lepton]

I know you are but what am I?

[casinopete]

also:

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

when people try to pin down what the fuck you're talking about you blame it on them and say shit like "Clearly there is no value in continuing to discuss this" not realizing that ironically that's true because you have your head so firmly up your own ass.

---

When you were trying to "pin down" what I was saying (I suppose with all your witty "clearly this one liner proves you're a moron" remarks, since those are the only posts you made responding to me), what did I do? Look back. Why, I answered, and I clarified, and I repeated. Clearly, my interest was in helping to pin down what I was saying. My "clearly there is no value in continuing" came after your fourth post in a row doing nothing but nitpicking and ridiculing rather than making any attempt to discuss.

[Samadhi]

CP: Dude you're a fuckwit.

You treated my questions and statements with derision from the beginning. Then when I quote you to show you why I'm saying what I'm saying, instead of you either
A. Being unable to accurately state your thoughts or
B. Saying one thing while meaning another or
C. Moving the goalposts
I'm some kind of monster who's nitpicking your posts.

Well, it's not my fault your thoughts aren't cogent. Don't shit all over the board and tell me it's fertilizer. The adult thing would have been to try to explain why what you said wasn't what I was interpreting it to be. You didn't do that, you blamed me for your shitwork.

Fuck you.

Not only all that but you seem to think you understand what the hell I'm talking about. More so you think you know ME so well that you can paint me with an anarchist brush. Well, pal, you don't know jack shit. You think you can catagorize me into some America hating group and write off my opinions. Well, the fact that you close your mind to whole facets of arguments shows just what a fuckwit you are.

Oh and by the way, fuck you.

[casinopete]

The first post you addressed me in:

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

While I don't even agree with this statement it's not even the same thing as a "right" to a job.
It's possible for me to learn astrophysics. Do I have a right to learn astrophysics?
It's possible for me to run the mile in under 6 minutes. Do I have a right to that?

---

The second post you addressed me in:

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

I accept the clarification in your definition. But you're still wrong. You don't have a right to earn a living from someone else. Go live in the fucking mountains.
Furthermore, you still need to shift your paradigm. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DECLARE INALIENABLE RIGHTS. THE PEOPLE DO. The government does not mete out rights. Got it?

---

The third:

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

Nonsense. This is the crap logic that allows subsidies in "job poor" areas. Move to where there are jobs!

---

The fourth:

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

What did I miss? How does the government claim certain rights to exist without declaring them?

---

The fifth:

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

Hey CP: Fuck you.

---

The sixth:

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

Probably just a typo.

---

The seventh:

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

No, it was probably just your inability to understand his genius.

---

Who treated whose questions and statements with derision (and what questions)? Who is shitting all over the board? Who is acting like an adult?

and:

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

Not only all that but you seem to think you understand what the hell I'm talking about. More so you think you know ME so well that you can paint me with an anarchist brush. Well, pal, you don't know jack shit. You think you can catagorize me into some America hating group and write off my opinions. Well, the fact that you close your mind to whole facets of arguments shows just what a fuckwit you are.

---

I do think I understand what you were talking about. I don't think I know you. I called you an anarchist in response to you telling me that the government shouldn't have protected the rights of black people because they should have "gone to live in the fucking mountains." I do not categorize you as America-hating, again, it was knee-jerk response to the insensitivity to racism being a real issue. I certainly wouldn't write off your opinions. I do not close my mind to whole facets of arguments (save when you put words in my mouth and ridicule them - I don't really consider that a branch of reasonable argumentation).

[Pablo]

@ Lepton

[Samadhi]

CP: Ok then. We'll just agree to disagree that you argue like a doofus.

[Fried Egg]

Casinopete

Re: Trade Union activities

I don't know what country you're from but you've only got to look at France to see how disruptive the unions are there. They effectively bring the country to halt everytime they want something.

Re: Drugs

That amount of times I've heard people oppose drugs because they damage the "fabric of society" (even if their effects are relatively undamaging).

Anyway, I really can't be bothered to discuss this anymore. If you're seriously labouring under the delusion that there are no laws that suppress individual liberty in favour of "social justice", there's probably little I can say to change your mind.

[casinopete]

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

I don't know what country you're from but you've only got to look at France to see how disruptive the unions are there. They effectively bring the country to halt everytime they want something.

---

Which is wrong. I'm not contesting that. I was asking what laws you're talking about.

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

That amount of times I've heard people oppose drugs because they damage the "fabric of society" (even if their effects are relatively undamaging).

---

I never have. Every argument I've ever heard, every (exaggerated) advertisement I've ever seen, has been regarding the danger drugs pose to self and others.

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

Anyway, I really can't be bothered to discuss this anymore. If you're seriously labouring under the delusion that there are no laws that suppress individual liberty in favour of "social justice", there's probably little I can say to change your mind.

---

And it's certainly easier assuming I know fuck-all than to simply provide examples to clear up my "delusion." Whatever. I agree this is a waste of time. Later.

[This message has been edited by casinopete (edited 06-09-2003 10:19 AM).]

[Fried Egg]

Casinopete

[casinopete]

Originally posted by Fried Egg quoting casinopete:

---

I was asking what laws you're talking about.

---

[Fried Egg]

[casinopete]

Agreed. And the sky is blue.

There is a big difference between such a declaration and actually pointing out a law that restricts individual rights without in any way protecting other rights. I was arguing because it very much sounded like you were claiming there are specific laws that do so.

[extropalopakettle]

Laws against responsible recreational drug use are a prime example, I think.

An extreme case would be laws that currently prohibit some tribes of native American Indians from practicing the religious use of peyote. This protects absolutely no rights of anyone. Nobody has ever had a right infringed by such a practice. It's prohibited purely out of a misguided notion that a "drug-free" society is somehow a better society than a non-drug-free society.

I feel the same about responsible recreational or otherwise personally motivated use of other drugs too. Responsible use does not infringe on the rights of others, but it is outlawed under the false premises that: a) it is OK to deny the rights of responsible drug users to protect against possible rights infringements due to irresponsible drug use, and b) it is possible to protect against rights infringements due to irresponsible drug use by denying the rights of responsible drug users.

[casinopete]

Originally posted by extropalopakettle:

---

Responsible use does not infringe on the rights of others, but it is outlawed under the false premises that: a) it is OK to deny the rights of responsible drug users to protect against possible rights infringements due to irresponsible drug use

---

This type of arguement also says there should be no speed limits - why deny the rights of competent drivers just to stop poor drivers from causing three times the number of car wreck deaths? The problem is that while many would behave responsibly, many, many more would not, and would pose a threat. And the same thing applies to some drugs.

[Samadhi]

*restrains himself*

[Pablo]

Originally posted by Extro:

---

It's prohibited purely out of a misguided notion that a "drug-free" society is somehow a better society than a non-drug-free society

---

This is from Reply 72. I completely agree with the main point of that post, but I would also add the following:

I personally believe that a "drug-free" society is better than a non-drug-free society, provided that society is choosing to be drug free with no influence from government. If it is drug-free because the government is imposing its will, then I would believe that society to be inferior to one that uses drugs. I personally believe the use of recreational drugs is not healthy and should be discouraged by parents, doctors, etc. But drug use, per se, should not be a crime.

If you light a joint in your house, that makes you a criminal? In Oregon, if a child rides a skateboard without a helmet, he is a criminal. Give me a break.

[extropalopakettle]

[extropalopakettle]

Originally posted by casinopete:

---

Originally posted by extropalopakettle:

---

Responsible use does not infringe on the rights of others, but it is outlawed under the false premises that: a) it is OK to deny the rights of responsible drug users to protect against possible rights infringements due to irresponsible drug use

---

This type of arguement also says there should be no speed limits - why deny the rights of competent drivers just to stop poor drivers from causing three times the number of car wreck deaths? The problem is that while many would behave responsibly, many, many more would not, and would pose a threat. And the same thing applies to some drugs.

---

But then there was my point 'b', which is that it's also a false premise that:

[Samadhi]

Another analogy could be:
Some people kill others with guns, therefore we should ban all guns.

In both circumstances (drugs, guns), as there is a clear distinction between use and abuse (nor harming and harming others), it is logical to focus punishment on the abusers.

Sometimes it is amazing to me how the two camps (Dem/Left, Rep/Right) can be diametrically opposed upon these two issues when they are in fact the same issue. The only thing I can think of is that they are focusing on extraneous issues beyond personal responsibility. The left rails against gun rights because they don't want another individual having power over them (I suppose) and the right rails against pharmaceutical rights (for lack of a better term) because they find it seedy and morally wrong (I presume).

[extropalopakettle]

Sometimes I think they actually fear that if people are left to use drugs they might eventually learn, on their own, to only use them responsibly. And that would be one less excuse for a paternalistic government that treats people like children.