OTZ changed my mind

[Accountable]

The debate in the 'Conservative or Libertarian' thread got me to thinking about the consequences of honoring business owners' right to be discriminant in who they serve (regardless of how bad a business decision that may be). When it comes to medical care - unlike a grocery store, clothier or restaurant - arbitrary discrimination could become a life-threatening issue. While doctor's take the Hippocratic Oath which requires them to serve anyone, a private hospital has no such moral standard. It is a business in business to make a profit. Here I find a situation where a person's right to be stupid really does infringe upon another person's right to life.

So for me the question becomes how to rectify this conflict while honoring liberty to the maximum extent possible. Should I make an exception to what I believe is a gross and unnecessary violation of our natural right, and say that any business should retain their right to discriminate unless they are in the medical business? That seems as hypocritical as saying a business that sells alcohol by the shot (a bar) can discriminate but one that sells the same alcohol by the case (a liquor store) cannot.

The only option that I can currently think of that would satisfy my principles of individual liberty would be for government (which must serve all citizens in its area) to provide a service. So in opposition to the current laws that violate individual right to private property, I would support my State of Texas to open and run regional hospitals, providing full medical services to all. I would prefer that they not accept any kind of insurance at all, and adjust their charges based on income.

 

[BornReady]

Anti-discrimination laws are a confusing topic for me. By the time you have enough people together to pass the law, you probably don't need the law. For example, you could pass a law preventing restaurants from refusing service to someone because they are black. However, I wouldn't go to a restaurant that didn't serve blacks and I'm not black. There are enough people like me that few restaurants could stay in business and discriminate. So the law isn't really necessary. Restaurants do discriminate against people who can not pay. If you wanted to stop that then you would need a law. But there aren't enough people who want to stop that to get a law passed. See the problem?

 

[rback33]

I can't speak for all states, but I know in Kansas that if you walk into the ER with a legitimate health issue, they are required by law to help you. They cannot discriminate in any way, even if you can't pay.

 

[Accountable]

I can't speak for all states, but I know in Kansas that if you walk into the ER with a legitimate health issue, they are required by law to help you. They cannot discriminate in any way, even if you can't pay.

Right. I'm pretty sure that's the way it is everywhere. That law violates property rights - unnecessarily, imo. I'll bet that most hospital ERs would serve anyone even without a legal requirement. If there were regional state hospitals it would be even less reason to violate private hospital owners' rights.

 

[Minor Axis]

The debate in the 'Conservative or Libertarian' thread got me to thinking about the consequences of honoring business owners' right to be discriminant in who they serve (regardless of how bad a business decision that may be). When it comes to medical care - unlike a grocery store, clothier or restaurant - arbitrary discrimination could become a life-threatening issue. While doctor's take the Hippocratic Oath which requires them to serve anyone, a private hospital has no such moral standard. It is a business in business to make a profit. Here I find a situation where a person's right to be stupid really does infringe upon another person's right to life.

So for me the question becomes how to rectify this conflict while honoring liberty to the maximum extent possible. Should I make an exception to what I believe is a gross and unnecessary violation of our natural right, and say that any business should retain their right to discriminate unless they are in the medical business? That seems as hypocritical as saying a business that sells alcohol by the shot (a bar) can discriminate but one that sells the same alcohol by the case (a liquor store) cannot.

The only option that I can currently think of that would satisfy my principles of individual liberty would be for government (which must serve all citizens in its area) to provide a service. So in opposition to the current laws that violate individual right to private property, I would support my State of Texas to open and run regional hospitals, providing full medical services to all. I would prefer that they not accept any kind of insurance at all, and adjust their charges based on income.

Wow, there is hope for you yet. Thumbs up. :thumbup The foundation of civil rights is that discrimination based on things such as race, gender, religion is detrimental towards society as a whole or I should qualify that and say it is detrimental to a free and open society. Waiting a couple hundred of years guarantees no change towards the better, based on time alone.

Anti-discrimination laws are a confusing topic for me. By the time you have enough people together to pass the law, you probably don't need the law. For example, you could pass a law preventing restaurants from refusing service to someone because they are black. However, I wouldn't go to a restaurant that didn't serve blacks and I'm not black. There are enough people like me that few restaurants could stay in business and discriminate. So the law isn't really necessary. Restaurants do discriminate against people who can not pay. If you wanted to stop that then you would need a law. But there aren't enough people who want to stop that to get a law passed. See the problem?

This standard was well established in the South for decades after the Civil War. If you were an entrepreneur, you could easily serve blacks in the back (something I saw portrayed in the movie Fried Green Tomatoes, excellent movie btw) and make money while maintaining the second class status of a race based on prejudice. All you have to do is watch a movie and observe what is portrayed as an authentic Southern trial involving a black defendant (pre-1960s), and it should make you cringe. Two excellent examples are Fried Green Tomatoes and To Kill a Mockingbird.

I can't speak for all states, but I know in Kansas that if you walk into the ER with a legitimate health issue, they are required by law to help you. They cannot discriminate in any way, even if you can't pay.

I believe hospitals in all States are required to admit all races due to Federal Statutes.

 

[Accountable]

Wow, there is hope for you yet. Thumbs up. :thumbup The foundation of civil rights is that discrimination based on things such as race, gender, religion is detrimental towards society as a whole or I should qualify that and say it is detrimental to a free and open society. Waiting a couple hundred of years guarantees no change towards the better, based on time alone.

A society that violates private property rights is by definition neither truly free nor open.

This standard was well established in the South for decades after the Civil War. If you were an entrepreneur, you could easily serve blacks in the back (something I saw portrayed in the movie Fried Green Tomatoes, excellent movie btw) and make money while maintaining the second class status of a race based on prejudice. All you have to do is watch a movie and observe what is portrayed as an authentic Southern trial involving a black defendant (pre-1960s), and it should make you cringe. Two excellent examples are Fried Green Tomatoes and To Kill a Mockingbird.

Discrimination at that time was endorsed by the local and often state authorities. Had the government modeled what the Declaration of Independence and Constitution espouses, there might have been a Civil Rights Evolution, rather than Revolution.

I believe hospitals in all States are required to admit all races due to Federal Statutes.

I'm pretty sure they are, too. The requirement violates our private property rights. Thus, my recommended solution.

 

[Minor Axis]

A society that violates private property rights is by definition neither truly free nor open.

The debate is that property rights and civil rights overlap one another. Where does one start and one end? You have a right to keep your property to yourself. When you open it up to a public business or offer what should be public services like a grocery store, then the debate starts.

 

[Accountable]

The debate is that property rights and civil rights overlap one another. Where does one start and one end? You have a right to keep your property to yourself. When you open it up to a public business or offer what should be public services like a grocery store, then the debate starts.

It doesn't need to start if the government truly honored private property rights as they are supposed to. Believing this myth that nothing happens without the force of law has ceded too much liberty to the authoritarians. Public pressure alone forced Walgreens to allow blacks to sit at their counters. Union pressure alone forced corporations to provide better pay and benefits. The laws came later ... and unnecessarily, imo. The failure of government to serve all it's constituents equally is what allowed (encouraged? created?) the violence and rioting connected to the early union strikes and civil rights protests.

 

[Minor Axis]

You don't really sound like you changed your mind...

 

[Accountable]

You don't really sound like you changed your mind...

I would support my State of Texas to open and run regional hospitals, providing full medical services to all. I didn't before. I'm sorry my reasons don't match yours ..... sorta.