My question, in light of the KY county clerk and her recent incarceration for contempt of court is;
"Are elected officials expected, required, obligated, or bound to obey, abide by and enforce the laws as they currently exist whether they personally agree with them or not?"
It seems to me that it is reasonable to expect the people elected to office should either obey current law or step down.
EDIT
Now, this is one answer to the question.
" The answer to your question is, of course, yes, I expect elected
officials to do their job, as a general rule. Unless and until their job
causes them to do harm, then they should rightly not do their job."
While I am hoping for, and will edit this to reflect it, clarification it seems as though there is an assumption that "...do their job..." includes things like obeying, abiding by, and enforcing the laws of their jurisdiction whether they agree with them or not. But, if one looks at the totality of the response, that isn't clear. The notion of causing harm is interesting as well, as it seems as though it is possible to be faced with two competing "harms" and having to choose one or the other. It also seems to equate the "harm" of inconvenience, with physical harm. That notion seems problematic to me. I'd love some more specific input.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
The notion of causing harm is interesting as well, as it seems as though it is possible to be faced with two competing "harms" and having to choose one or the other.
I would suggest that it can be tricky, but generally, it's just not that hard.
Example 1: If a slaveowner is forced to free his slaves, then it will "harm" his business. If the slave remains owned, he loses his liberty.
Human liberty is a natural right. "profit" is not. Slave goes free.
Example 2: If a woman can take just any job, then it may harm men who will now face stiffer competition for jobs. If the woman is not allowed to work, she loses her right to self determination.
Human liberty/self-determination is a natural right. "Less competition in the job market" is not. Women can work.
Example 3: If a landlord is "forced" to not discriminate against groups (black folk, gay folk, Muslims, Baptists), he loses his option of picking only those groups he prefers. If groups can be discriminated against in housing, then minorities may lose freedom of mobility and self-determination, to live where they choose.
Human liberty is a natural right. Freedom to discriminate against groups is not, not when it causes harm (and blocking people from housing, from stores, from the market place DOES cause harm). Minorities can't be discriminated against.
Example 4: If a coal company is forced to take measures to protect the water and land and air around where they are harvesting coal, it drives their costs up and causes the harm of less profitability. If they aren't required to take those measures, the neighbors' air, land and water can be physically damaged, causing harm and problems to their health and livelihood.
Life, health and liberty are natural rights. "Profit" is not. Protect the water, land and air.
Like that.
One simply does not have the freedom to cause harm to others and harm is removing or threatening life, liberty and self-determination.
Can you think of instances where actual natural rights/freedom from harm truly compete?
Why yes I can, there was one that has gotten a lot of news coverage recently which illustrates my point perfectly.
When I'm not commenting from my phone I'll summarize and post a link with details
I believe Dan errs in a number of ways.
1. Slavery is not a parallel to any issue on the table with regards to the Davis situation. Indeed, it is not relevant to anything in our nation today.
2. Dan feels that a woman's "right of self-determination" outweighs a man's right. What's more, there is no such enumerated right. What Dan believes is a right is a distorted notion of the right to pursue happiness, which is not an obligation of any employer to provide for any candidate for a job. The law is wrong.
3. A landlord has his rights to pursue his happiness infringed by being forced to provide housing for those not of his choosing, as if the government has any right to dictate how he runs his business. His choice in to whom he rents his own private property does not harm the thousands who will not be provided for by his choice in tenants. It does not infringe upon their own rights to find suitable housing anymore than the government force does to those who will lose the housing now mandated to others. Said another way, refusing housing to one group allows for another group. Forcing the landlord to provide for one group, denies other groups. The law is wrong.
4. Dan believes that all coal operations are run by greedy, self-interested a**holes with no concern whatsoever for the air, land and water their own families must use. He also believes that the power needs of his fellow Americans are outweighed by the tree-hugging chuckleheads that want to live like it's the 18th century.
I haven't had as much time as I'd like to this, but here is my current example of actual harm happening to innocent people as a direct result of elected officials choosing to ignore current law.
Earlier this year a young woman was killed in San Francisco by a gentleman who had violated US immigration law, been deported multiple times, yet returned to the US in violation of the law. He specifically chose SF because the city government has been specific and vocal about refusing to enforce laws as they pertain to immigration. This is just one specific event, there are plenty of studies that show the amounts of crime committed by people who are in this country illegally, that directly connects that refusal of elected officials to abide by/enforce the laws in effect in their jurisdiction to a specific "harmful" act.
So, there you have it, a few folks inconvenienced in KY or a dead woman in CA. Obviously the inconvenience story is the one that gets the larger play in the media and Facebook/Twitter.
MA,
1. I agree, it's just such an emotionally charged term that it is useful as a sort of verbal bludgeon when all else fails. Of course of Dan, and folks like him, were as concerned about current ongoing slavery that is really actually happening right now, as they are/he is about "slavery" in the Bible or 200 years ago in the US they would have much more credibility. Even if they were, all that would happen is a hashtag campaign, and much self congratulatory back patting with no ones life actually improved.
2. Or, Dan wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to "decry" abortion while striving and supporting those who want to expand it.
3. I somewhat agree that forcing people to accommodate specific groups of people when deciding how to use their personal residence bothers me. However, once it goes beyond that (apartment building), then I can see the need for some sort of fair housing access guidelines.
4. Dan chooses to assume that there is no way to extract coal (etc) that does not cause rampant widespread destruction. He also chooses to pretend that much of what offends him is, in fact, carried out in a legal manner. I agree that people who violate the law should be punished, but as long as the mining is carried out within the bounds of existing law then I have no problem. There is a sense in which these folks are sort of Luddite. They demand that we stop using existing energy sources, while oblivious to the fact that there is no way to replace them. Resulting is a trip back to the 1800's. (sort of) I suspect that these same folks would be against reverting to draft animal power both on "cruelty to animals" grounds as well as "animal waste pollution" grounds. The bottom line is that the market will drive change in energy production methods when current methods fail to be efficient. Of course there is the whole virtual ban on nuclear which would lower the demand for coal, and the refusal to allow pipelines for natural gas which would also lower coal demands. So, you may be right, they are Luddites.
One caveat regarding your last, Craig. I regard apartment buildings as the private property of the owners, be they individuals or a company with shareholders. Public accommodation laws are wholly unConstitutional as they should never have dared infringe upon the rights of the private citizen as if they were extensions of the government, for whom Civil Rights laws must apply. While I may choose to deny housing to homosexuals (or even people with red hair, for that matter), there will undoubtedly be those who will. It's my business, not the government's. And for those who whine about people of faith sticking their noses in the personal business of homosexuals, daring to dictate to actual businesses is incredibly ironic.
MA,
Personally I think it's a grey area. If an individual owns an apartment building then I'd lean toward private property, once it goes beyond that it's more of a business situation. Personally I tend to lean toward something that prevents housing discrimination, balanced with the property owners right to rent to whom they choose. My issue with renting a room in a privately owned house and why I see that differently is that the renter is actually living in the owners primary residence. This may be an area where I'm inconsistent, and I can live with it if I am.
Ultimately the reality is that anyone can deny service to anyone else, they just have to do it in the right way. When I was in business, I had all kinds of ways to discourage the folks who I didn't want to work with, none of them was illegal.
Not to get too off topic, but I believe that without something like a Hypocratic oath, I don't see that there is any obligation upon any business toward anyone. I put the divide between government and the rest of us, and I believe that it would difficult to make the case that the founders didn't see it the same way. I don't see discrimination as wrong so much as it is irrational when based on insignificant characteristics, such as skin color. But for whatever reason one might have for denying association with another, that seems to me a point of liberty that falls well within the range of what the founders had in mind. I may disagree with a merchant who denies service to certain people, but again, it's his business and I don't see that the government has any authority to force compliance with what the government MUST provide in order for it to adhere to the Constitutional concept of equal rights. No business is government and thus not required to act as if it is.
Some may indeed believe that all people should treat everyone equally. In fact I'm sure most do. I certainly am one such person. I would adjust my patronage accordingly, as I do favor businesses that share my beliefs regarding things like abortifacient, marriage and morality, and would take my business from those who act in a manner with which I disagree. Thus, we discriminate one way or the other, as few will willingly, and certainly not eagerly, give their hard-earned dollars to businesses that espouse opposing points of view.
Just sayin'.
I do think your correct that it is generally bad business to refuse service to anyone especially for superficial reasons. I suspect that the market place will deal effectively with folks who deny service for trivial reasons. But, call me inconsistent, I think that rental housing outside of someone's residence is different.
I do think your correct that it is generally bad business to refuse service to anyone especially for superficial reasons. I suspect that the market place will deal effectively with folks who deny service for trivial reasons. But, call me inconsistent, I think that rental housing outside of someone's residence is different.
I do think your correct that it is generally bad business to refuse service to anyone especially for superficial reasons. I suspect that the market place will deal effectively with folks who deny service for trivial reasons. But, call me inconsistent, I think that rental housing outside of someone's residence is different.
I do think your correct that it is generally bad business to refuse service to anyone especially for superficial reasons. I suspect that the market place will deal effectively with folks who deny service for trivial reasons. But, call me inconsistent, I think that rental housing outside of someone's residence is different.
I do think your correct that it is generally bad business to refuse service to anyone especially for superficial reasons. I suspect that the market place will deal effectively with folks who deny service for trivial reasons. But, call me inconsistent, I think that rental housing outside of someone's residence is different.
It is inconsistent. Rental housing is still someone's private property, just as their primary residence is. Even if it is owned corporately, it is still NOT a government entity. Equal rights is a mandate the government is to honor. It is a personal decision of the private individual.
I'm not denying the potential inconsistency. I'm sure my professional involvement with housing and seeing the negative effects of lack of housing has colored my judgement.
I want to draw attention to the fact that Dan has a habit of entering these conversations, throwing out his talking points, dodging questions then leaving. He then shows up in a different thread as if none of his past actions have occurred.
Post a Comment