You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
In Rand Paul's world, does a private doctor get to refuse treatment to a black man?
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Ideally one should no more be compelled to enter into a business contract against one's will than one's services supposedly are right(s) and have statutory claims on your labor.
IMHO People are getting all stupid over nothing both the business owner and customer have the same rights.
The govt should not compel someone to be someone else's customer or provider of a service against ones will. Pretty simple
IMHO People are getting all stupid over nothing both the business owner and customer have the same rights.
The govt should not compel someone to be someone else's customer or provider of a service against ones will. Pretty simple
PatternRec
Guest
Stupid thread.
Why?
Hippocratic oath. Unless you can also show that Rand Paul is looking to modify the Hippocratic oath in his own words. Then I would necessarily recant.
Hippocratic oath:
Why?
Hippocratic oath. Unless you can also show that Rand Paul is looking to modify the Hippocratic oath in his own words. Then I would necessarily recant.
Hippocratic oath:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
So you are saying a doctor's business of medicine should follow a different ethical structure, than say someone who owns a diner?
Why should a doctor who is in the business of medicine, in a private practice, be forced to treat people of color against his will?
Why should a doctor who is in the business of medicine, in a private practice, be forced to treat people of color against his will?
Quote from PatternRec:
Stupid thread.
Why?
Hippocratic oath. Unless you can also show that Rand Paul is looking to modify the Hippocratic oath in his own words. Then I would necessarily recant.
Hippocratic oath:
I understand your point of view, but exactly where is it right to deny someone any service on the basis of race?
Rand says institutional racism should be illegal.
Why?
Because he thinks racism is wrong.
Okay. He thinks racism is wrong. Morally wrong?
Yes, morally wrong.
Detrimental to society?
Yes, detrimental society.
Why then should a business, open to the public, open to society at large be exempt from the Civil Rights Act?
This is where I don't see a cogent response from Rand nor his followers.
If something is wrong...why shouldn't it be illegal, when it harms others?
Why is there this peculiar exemption for a private business to practice something that is wrong?
This argument of property rights just does not hold water, as it assumes property rights trumps all human rights.
"I own a business and I am not going to serve niggers."
Is it legal to say that? Sure.
Is it legal to actually deny black service? No.
It is protected speech to say what you like, it is not protected speech when you deny a person of color the same service as a white.
It is this logical inconsistency in Rand's position that ultimate reveals his view on racism...i.e. that it may not be desirable, but it should not be prohibited by a society.
Rand says institutional racism should be illegal.
Why?
Because he thinks racism is wrong.
Okay. He thinks racism is wrong. Morally wrong?
Yes, morally wrong.
Detrimental to society?
Yes, detrimental society.
Why then should a business, open to the public, open to society at large be exempt from the Civil Rights Act?
This is where I don't see a cogent response from Rand nor his followers.
If something is wrong...why shouldn't it be illegal, when it harms others?
Why is there this peculiar exemption for a private business to practice something that is wrong?
This argument of property rights just does not hold water, as it assumes property rights trumps all human rights.
"I own a business and I am not going to serve niggers."
Is it legal to say that? Sure.
Is it legal to actually deny black service? No.
It is protected speech to say what you like, it is not protected speech when you deny a person of color the same service as a white.
It is this logical inconsistency in Rand's position that ultimate reveals his view on racism...i.e. that it may not be desirable, but it should not be prohibited by a society.
Quote from Mnphats:
For sure. A stretch at best to the op.
PatternRec
Guest
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
So you are saying a doctor's business of medicine should follow a different ethical structure, than say someone who owns a diner?
Why should a doctor who is in the business of medicine, in a private practice, be forced to treat people of color against his will?
It's fun for you isn't it?
Let's say the food service industry license required practitioners to take an oath. In that oath, it prevents discrimination.
Which ethical standard are they governed by?
See where this is going and why harping on Rand's statements is silly? It's easy to overcome. Especially when you factor in state's sovereignty. Something Libertarians are all for.
So let's say by some miracle Rand took control of the federal government and abolished civil right's laws applicability to private enterprise. So what?
Why?
He would have to uphold state sovereignty. And states would be able to institute their own anti-discrimination laws applicable to private enterprise. So if there are a few lone states that wish to take a purely libertarian view like Rand's, those states would face all sorts of pressure and competition from states that were more protective of civil rights. They likely wouldn't be able to uphold that libertarian view in the face of it. Throw in the rest of the Western world's opinion...
So who really cares about what Rand says and feels? He's one man.
Get over it already. No politician has ever firmly set out to do what they believe in. Government systems are one of compromise.
Because it is immoral to impose your idea of morality on others. All should be free to follow their own moral inclinations, and not be forced to follow the inclinations of others. The collective PC entity has replaced the church as the primary distributor of ignorance and judgment in modern times.
Just because you, I, Rand, Pattern, phats or whoever has the belief that something is morally wrong doesn't mean that others should also have to adhere to that moral standard if they don't believe in it.
I know you hate the fact that the thought police don't exist yet, and the idea of legislating morality makes you cream your shorts quicker than a drive past an elementary school yard.
Just because you, I, Rand, Pattern, phats or whoever has the belief that something is morally wrong doesn't mean that others should also have to adhere to that moral standard if they don't believe in it.
I know you hate the fact that the thought police don't exist yet, and the idea of legislating morality makes you cream your shorts quicker than a drive past an elementary school yard.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I understand your point of view, but exactly where is it right to deny someone any service on the basis of race?
Rand says institutional racism should be illegal.
Why?
Because he thinks racism is wrong.
Okay. He thinks racism is wrong. Morally wrong?
Yes, morally wrong.
Detrimental to society?
Yes, detrimental society.
Why then should a business, open to the public, open to society at large be exempt from the Civil Rights Act?
This is where I don't see a cogent response from Rand nor his followers.
If something is wrong...why shouldn't it be illegal, when it harms others?
Why is there this peculiar exemption for a private business to practice something that is wrong?
This argument of property rights just does not hold water, as it assumes property rights trumps all human rights.
"I own a business and I am not going to serve niggers."
Is it legal to say that? Sure.
Is it legal to actually deny black service? No.
It is protected speech to say what you like, it is not protected speech when you deny a person of color the same service as a white.
It is this logical inconsistency in Rand's position that ultimate reveals his view on racism...i.e. that it may not be desirable, but it should not be prohibited by a society.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I understand your point of view, but exactly where is it right to deny someone any service on the basis of race?
Rand says institutional racism should be illegal.
Why?
Because he thinks racism is wrong.
Okay. He thinks racism is wrong. Morally wrong?
Yes, morally wrong.
Detrimental to society?
Yes, detrimental society.
Why then should a business, open to the public, open to society at large be exempt from the Civil Rights Act?
This is where I don't see a cogent response from Rand nor his followers.
If something is wrong...why shouldn't it be illegal, when it harms others?
Why is there this peculiar exemption for a private business to practice something that is wrong?
This argument of property rights just does not hold water, as it assumes property rights trumps all human rights.
"I own a business and I am not going to serve niggers."
Is it legal to say that? Sure.
Is it legal to actually deny black service? No.
It is protected speech to say what you like, it is not protected speech when you deny a person of color the same service as a white.
It is this logical inconsistency in Rand's position that ultimate reveals his view on racism...i.e. that it may not be desirable, but it should not be prohibited by a society.
He is saying the federal government has overstepped its boundaries starting with the civil rights act. But then again you already know this.