Posted on 05/26/2009 9:40:55 AM PDT by VirginiaConstitutionalist
I tend to agree. First, make no mistake -- She is extremely left of center, but in many ways she reminds me of the Jesuit priests with a strong sense of social justice, including the sanctity of life and the evils of abortion. Second, because she appears to be an intellectual lightweight, she may lack the ability to pursuade the other liberal memebers of the court to take her position, and could push Kennedy as the swing vote further to the right.
I'll pretend that bloviation meant something.
Federal contract opportunities are typically given much broader notice than those in the private sector. And the completive process is intense and closely documented.
THIS.
I hope you don't mind if I add my own take on discrimination in private businesses vs. discrimination by the government. To clarify, this is my idea of how things "should" be, not how they actually are. (I suspect this is what In veno, veritas has been describing as well..."ought", not "is").
As a private citizen I can choose whether or not I want to interact with a particular private business. I can choose to buy their products... or not. I can choose to sell my services to them... or not. The local grocery store can not force me to buy a jar of pickles nor can they make me sweep the floor unless they offer terms that I choose to accept.
But at the same time, I also don't have a right to any of the business's products, services, or money. The private business is (usually) made up of private individuals who have the same right to choose whether or not to interact with me. The only obligation the business has is to refrain from violating my rights. I think most conservatives would agree that I don't have the right to force someone else to provide me with a cheeseburger or an oil change or a nice office job with 4 weeks vacation.
The government is different because no citizen can avoid dealing with it. We are all subject to its laws. We can all be forced to contribute our money or our services to the government. Unlike businesses, the government doesn't need my consent before it intrudes on my life. The justification for having a government with these extra powers is that it exists to protect all of our rights.
So in my opinion, government agents should NOT have the same freedom of association that private businesses should have. Since every citizen is equally subject to having their freedom, money, or even their life commandeered by the government, every citizen has the right to reasonably equal treatment by the government.
There's also much less at stake when the government chooses to regulate itself as opposed to when it tries to set rules for everyone else. The former doesn't jeopardize any rights since a). governments don't have rights in the first place, and b). an entity can't violate its own rights.
Contracts are frequently renegotiated in both the public and private sectors. You do love non sequiturs.
I guess there are no political favors (pay to play on occasion)?
Randy Cunningham in in prison for that.
I guess that no-bid contract Murtha gave didn't really exist.
The one that agents from the inspector general's fraud detection unit are serving subpoenas on?
Oh yes, let's assume a profit maximizing benevolent government!
Let's suppose a howling Libertarian knows nothing about the process.
Who needs guns when we have corrupt-free cops?
And a cop hater to boot. Should have known.
Private businesses can't put "Whites Only" signs in their windows.
I know. Once again, I was not discussing the way things *are* but rather the way I think they *should be*.
Government is the third party enforcement agent to property ownership. If “private” business owners want engage in racial discrimination, do they have the right to invoke state power to protect and enforce that discrimination?
This is one of the many issues the simplistic dogmas of Libertarianism can’t address.
Yes. Why shouldn't they?
Protecting someone's rights is not the same as endorsing how those rights are exercised.
Because the state is then engaging in racial discrimination.
Protecting someone's rights is not the same as endorsing how those rights are exercised.
Assuming for the sake of discussion that your assertion is correct, enforcing racism is worse than endorsing racism.
Such state actions are violative of the Constitution.
See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)
Such state actions are violative of the Constitution. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)
I disagree with the court's reasoning. For the state to protect someone's property rights or freedom of association is no more "enforcing discrimination" than enforcing a contract drafted according to Islamic principles would be "establishing a religion".
Suppose I distribute invitations at my workplace for a party at my home. The invitation states that all employees are welcome... except for Asian employees. An Asian coworker shows up at my home and refuses to leave when requested. If the police show up and remove him from my home, have they violated the 14th Amendment by enforcing my discriminatory scheme?
Then you should not have a problem addressing the specific facts of the case. Can you?
Now that I've answered your question, what's your take on the house party scenario I described in my previous post?
So a racist records a restriction on a parcel of land limiting ownership and occupancy of it in perpetuity to the White race. Years pass, he dies and goes to hell. The state should now use force to prevent nonwhites from living there for the rest of eternity? When the state partners with racism, it becomes an instrument of racism.
Another failure of libertarian reductionist thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.