• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

No guns in KFC

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TareytonTareyton is a brand of cigarettes originally manufactured by the American Tobacco Company. ... As filters gained in popularity in the late 1950s, Tareyton was created in 1954 as the filtered version of Herbert Tareyton, minus the cork tip.

Very few non corked filtered tip cigerettes produced anymore. Think most such used a stiff cardboard like tube for the filter.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
If the carry of a firearm were a immutable human trait ...
(emphasis added)

That is an interested term. Does it come into play much except in the Supreme Court's decisions to uphold anti-discrimination laws?

Upon consideration, I think it is a most unfortunate basis for their decision. While race, gender, national origin, and disability are immutable human traits, what of religious or political affiliation? It seems entirely normal for people to change these at will. I trust all here would be as offended at a "No Catholics" sign as they would be by "No Coloreds".

Is marital status an "immutable human trait"? People move from single, to married, to divorced by choice, and from married to widowed frequently. What about family status? Methinks that children are quite often a very deliberate choice. Is anyone here going to stand up and defend discrimination based on marital or family status?

While sexual orientation may be an immutable trait in many cases, I personally know homosexual women who will freely admit that after being in abusive heterosexual relationships, they made a conscience decision to never again be with anyone strong enough to overpower them. They chose to pursue relationships with other women. I've never personally known a homosexual man to admit to any real choice in the matter. But I do know of those who claim to have been homosexual who are now heterosexual. In any event, regardless of sexual orientation, it is hard to imagine very many cases where a couple is required to be at all demonstrative while in public. Are you ok if a shop keeper refuses service to two men holding hands?

Directly on point, our RKBA is a direct extension of our natural right to life and the first law of nature which is self-preservation. I cannot imagine a more immutable natural characteristic than self preservation. In this regard, peacefully bearing arms is an immutable trait.

Most importantly, do you limit your views of right and wrong to what the court has decreed? You've used their exact reasoning; reasoning that the court has had to stretch to cover a number of protected categories that simply are not "immutable human traits."

We would have been better off had the court been honest and simply said, "Certain discrimination offends the collective conscience of society and will not be tolerated. We'll let you know what that list is as it ebbs and flows over time."

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
And here lies the difference that many people fail, or refuse, to see. You and I can leave our firearms in the car or leave them at home. A black person doesn't have that option with his race, his skin is part of his body. Even things that are not physically attached can be part of a person's "being" and impossible to leave behind, like religion, gender or age. These items get special consideration and any attempt to include our gun rights in that group will meet a lot of opposition, even from pro-gun people, because guns simply don't fit the category. I'd like to see an end to, or at least a smaller number of, these signs, but trying to get them include in this group is not going to produce any results any time soon.


Let me counter a bit.

I can choose to change religion or political affiliation. I can choose to change marital status. Or, I can choose to conceal or even lie about such things. Similarly, I can choose not to reveal my sexual orientation. Some number of persons are able to conceal their race/ethnicity (eg "passing") or gender ("Pat is short for "Paaaa-aaaa-aaat")

The question is, Should any person be required to choose between accessing general goods and services and changing or concealing these things even if s/he can reasonably do so?

Most all here would say, "No" when it comes to the categories I've noted above. But for some reason, a lot of those same folks are ok if gun carriers are required to choose between maintaining their self-defense and accessing general goods and services.

I can accept--even as I disagree with--a true libertarian position that opposes all anti-discrimination laws. What I have a hard time understanding is gun owners who support anti-discrimination for other groups but not for lawful carriers. That some are so quick to use a SCOTUS-invented (and inconsistent) rational like "immutable human trait" is also troubling to me.

As far as what can or cannot be done politically, that is a matter of local politics. Here in Utah we successfully passed "Parking Lot Preemption" to protect an employee's ability to keep a gun in his own car even if he parks in a company parking lot. It was/is a small, but very important first step.

What is for certain is that "if you don't ask for what you want, you won't get what you might have got." So long as the RKBA community is ok being denied general goods and services simply for being legally armed, we will never get any legal protection against such discrimination.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
There are those who would point out that the results of such persistance might be unwanted attention from a moderator.

We need and have finite defiinitions for good reason.

If there is to be "unwanted attention from a moderator" perhaps our moderator would be good enough to let the rest of us know when he is posting as a moderator, vs when he is writing as a regular forum participant.

If the moderator is always the moderator and ever post is a "called judgment" that must not be questioned, challenged, or discussed, that would be good to know.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
LOL @ Religion and gender as immutable.

Exactly.

The SCOTUS cooked up this "justification" to support anti-discrimination laws to protect racial minorities and women. But then stretched it beyond all credibility to include other categories that clearly are not immutable characteristics, but against which discrimination in places of public accommodation is both offensive and damaging to the general public.

It has lead to otherwise needless debates about whether homosexuality is an immutable trait or caused by some environmental condition. The legal/political need for homosexuality to be immutable (rather than a choice, an illness, or potentially caused by environmental factors) has actually resulted in homosexual activists pushing for laws against any medical treatment to help a person change his sexual desires. Now, I don't claim to know whether or to what extent such attractions can be changed. But if a mature adult wants to try, with the assistance of competent medical authority, he ought to able to do so. I also don't think politics is a very good way to determine what medical treatment does or doesn't make sense.

Bottom line, I'm looking for anyone willing to discuss his support for anti-discrimination laws to protect race, gender, religion, etc but who is opposed to expanding such laws to cover the lawful possession of firearms. Ideally, someone would be able to articulate a reason for this apparent inconsistency that doesn't rely on the SCOTUS-invented "immutable trait" nonsense.

Of course, since I've dared disagree with a moderator (in what I thought was a personal posting), we'll see how long before the thread is locked or I get banned.

Some of those who are thin skinned have more power to prevent anything that bothers them than do others.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
(emphasis added)

That is an interested term. Does it come into play much except in the Supreme Court's decisions to uphold anti-discrimination laws?

Upon consideration, I think it is a most unfortunate basis for their decision. While race, gender, national origin, and disability are immutable human traits, what of religious or political affiliation? It seems entirely normal for people to change these at will. I trust all here would be as offended at a "No Catholics" sign as they would be by "No Coloreds".

Is marital status an "immutable human trait"? People move from single, to married, to divorced by choice, and from married to widowed frequently. What about family status? Methinks that children are quite often a very deliberate choice. Is anyone here going to stand up and defend discrimination based on marital or family status?

While sexual orientation may be an immutable trait in many cases, I personally know homosexual women who will freely admit that after being in abusive heterosexual relationships, they made a conscience decision to never again be with anyone strong enough to overpower them. They chose to pursue relationships with other women. I've never personally known a homosexual man to admit to any real choice in the matter. But I do know of those who claim to have been homosexual who are now heterosexual. In any event, regardless of sexual orientation, it is hard to imagine very many cases where a couple is required to be at all demonstrative while in public. Are you ok if a shop keeper refuses service to two men holding hands?

Directly on point, our RKBA is a direct extension of our natural right to life and the first law of nature which is self-preservation. I cannot imagine a more immutable natural characteristic than self preservation. In this regard, peacefully bearing arms is an immutable trait.

Most importantly, do you limit your views of right and wrong to what the court has decreed? You've used their exact reasoning; reasoning that the court has had to stretch to cover a number of protected categories that simply are not "immutable human traits."

We would have been better off had the court been honest and simply said, "Certain discrimination offends the collective conscience of society and will not be tolerated. We'll let you know what that list is as it ebbs and flows over time."

Charles
Either you respect private property rights within the confines of the law, or you do not. KFC does not classify, in my opinion, as a "general goods and services" business. A grocery store, hardware store, general mercantile store are different matters. In Missouri I know of no grocery store, hardware store, or general mercantile store (essential goods and services) that prohibits the carry of a firearm. Nor do any bank that I patronage. There are plenty of businesses that will not prohibit my firearm and I patronize them. My church does not prohibit CC (OC is denied) and took some time to find one that did not deny my natural right to defend me and mine. You have made a distinction for the Mormon church as is your right.

Personally, I will not cross the threshold of a business that does not respect my RKBA when there are other options available. If there are no other options then I am compelled to place myself at a inconvenience. You are free to act as you choose.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Either you respect private property rights within the confines of the law, or you do not.

What does that mean? Are you suggesting that those young black civil rights protesters in the 1960s who refused to leave the lunch counter without getting equal service were not "respect[ing] private property rights within the confines of the law"? Do you look down on them for not just taking their business elsewhere?

Is one respecting private property rights if he supports anti-discrimination laws that protect racial and religious minorities?

How is advocating for expanding to also protect lawful gun carriers materially different?

I read a fair bit of emphatic assertion from those who support anti-discrimination protection for some groups while opposing similar protections for those lawfully in possession of firearms. I don't see much attempt to provide a logical rationale for that distinction. I don't even see anyone openly conceding mere political realities.

Come on guys. This is an OC/ RKBA forum. This is thread about a business open to the general public, a place classified as a public accommodation, refusing service to lawfully armed persons only because they are lawfully armed.

Certainly this topic deserves a little more discussion than is being devoted to a half dozen non-RKBA discussions in the social lounge.

If a law came up in your city/State to extend anti-discrimination protections to lawful possession of a gun, would you support or oppose? What about the same law extending protections to homosexual individuals or couples? If your responses differ, why? On what principled or even pragmatic matter does your inconsistency rest?
 
Last edited:

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
There are those who would point out that the results of such persistance might be unwanted attention from a moderator.

We need and have finite defiinitions for good reason.

My most sincere appologies, but I have not seen even the slightest hint that there might be any rule violation here. I appreciate "light handed moderation", but in this case it has been completely invisible to me. I shall not post again on this subject or any related to it. Frankly, it is difficult to avoid something when you don't know what you are avoiding and difficult to "persist" in something that you did not know was unwelcome.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
What does that mean? Are you suggesting that those young black civil rights protesters in the 1960s who refused to leave the lunch counter without getting equal service were not "respect[ing] private property rights within the confines of the law"? Do you look down on them for not just taking their business elsewhere?

Is one respecting private property rights if he supports anti-discrimination laws that protect racial and religious minorities?

How is advocating for expanding to also protect lawful gun carriers materially different?

I read a fair bit of emphatic assertion from those who support anti-discrimination protection for some groups while opposing similar protections for those lawfully in possession of firearms. I don't see much attempt to provide a logical rationale for that distinction. I don't even see anyone openly conceding mere political realities.

Come on guys. This is an OC/ RKBA forum. This is thread about a business open to the general public, a place classified as a public accommodation, refusing service to lawfully armed persons only because they are lawfully armed.

Certainly this topic deserves a little more discussion than is being devoted to a half dozen non-RKBA discussions in the social lounge.

If a law came up in your city/State to extend anti-discrimination protections to lawful possession of a gun, would you support or oppose? What about the same law extending protections to homosexual individuals or couples? If your responses differ, why? On what principled or even pragmatic matter does your inconsistency rest?

Charles
You make some great points, clearly the 2nd amendment is a " disfavored" right. Currently there is NO federal law that requires businesses to serve all customers without regard to sexual orientation, but 21 states have " public accommodation laws" laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians.. However some businesses will not accommodate homosexuals because of their religious beliefs.There is a case out of Colorado that the Supremes will rule on in February, ( I believe).. I suggest we all read the case Mastercakeshop v Colorado civil rights commission. The outcome of this case could in fact give carte blanch to " Religious Liberties"..

The Constitution protects us against " GOVERNMENT" intrusions, private individual business owners, can and do make their own rules.
Property rights at the time of framing were held in high esteem and were a " favored" right.. Businesses can and still do have " dress codes" for example.

The Mastercakeshop case, is one that will pit, property rights and religious liberties against discrimination laws and public accommodation laws.

In my humble lay person opinion, a private business altho opened to the general public, should have the right to serve or not serve a citizen at the businesses discretion... Our great document, was created to keep Government off our backs, not created to tell McDonalds who they can and cannot give serve too. Think right to associate, private business can associate with whom ever they please and disassociate whenever they please..

I think Religious liberties and property rights will win the case at bar. Concerning KFC not serving an open carrier, said carrier has a right to take his/her business else where..

We should be more concerned, when government owned buildings and agencies of the government deny us our right to keep and bear arms, the constitution was instituted for government to protect our rights, not violate said rights.

Until business owners take an oath to uphold the" Constitution" they can make their own rules, don't like the rules, take your hard earned money where your money is wanted..

Please read the case--- Master piece cake shop v Colorado civil rights commission...

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
What does that mean? Are you suggesting that those young black civil rights protesters in the 1960s who refused to leave the lunch counter without getting equal service were not "respect[ing] private property rights within the confines of the law"? Do you look down on them for not just taking their business elsewhere?
We have gone down this road before. You and I disagree on the rights of private property owners. You exclude the LDS from your criteria because Utah laws gives you an out.

Is one respecting private property rights if he supports anti-discrimination laws that protect racial and religious minorities?
I have clearly stated that I do not support bigots via my wallet. I do not patronize businesses that would deny my RKBA.

How is advocating for expanding to also protect lawful gun carriers materially different?
Get the LDS to allow me to carry (CC at a minimum) in/on their property and I will vote to make our RKBA a protected class.

I read a fair bit of emphatic assertion from those who support anti-discrimination protection for some groups while opposing similar protections for those lawfully in possession of firearms. I don't see much attempt to provide a logical rationale for that distinction. I don't even see anyone openly conceding mere political realities.
Get the LDS to respect your/our RKBA (CC at a minimum) and then come back and I will be more that ready to work to get that KFC held legally liable for their bigotry.

Come on guys. This is an OC/ RKBA forum. This is thread about a business open to the general public, a place classified as a public accommodation, refusing service to lawfully armed persons only because they are lawfully armed.
I believe that our RKBA does not trump private property rights.

Certainly this topic deserves a little more discussion than is being devoted to a half dozen non-RKBA discussions in the social lounge.
Why must the LDS be held harmless from the bigotry label. I CC in my church here in Missouri, and my church in SC.

If a law came up in your city/State to extend anti-discrimination protections to lawful possession of a gun, would you support or oppose? What about the same law extending protections to homosexual individuals or couples? If your responses differ, why? On what principled or even pragmatic matter does your inconsistency rest?
Get the LDS to allow me to carry in/on their property and we can then move onto any given KFC. Until then...
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Charles

In my humble lay person opinion, a private business altho opened to the general public, should have the right to serve or not serve a citizen at the businesses discretion...

That is a principled, and self consistent position. I can respect and understand it even as I disagree with it.

Legally, a business would be allowed to post a "No Coloreds" sign and deny service, or only provide service out back. The free market and social media probably prevents anyone actually be shut out of all services and employment in most areas of the nation. A rural area, however, could pretty well run anyone or any group out of town if a couple of business owners both agreed not to provide any services at all.

As for the bakery case out of Colorado, I'm quite familiar with it. It will most certainly not allow unlimited discrimination. The baker involved has not refused service homosexual individuals. Rather, he has declined to use artistic talent in creating a custom wedding cake for use at a homosexual "wedding" reception. Even a favorable ruling for the baker in this case will extend no further than allowing creative talent to decline services that promote a message offensive to the talent. I predict the court does some amazing legal gymnastics to uphold local laws forcing everyone to give their assent to homosexual unions as a condition of holding a business license, while still allowing ad firms and campaign consultants to specialize in GOP or Democrat races, to allow celebrities to decline any movie part they don't want to take, and so on. Of course, businesses will continue to be perfectly free to refuse service to those who are legally armed.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
We have gone down this road before. You and I disagree on the rights of private property owners. You exclude the LDS from your criteria because Utah laws gives you an out.

I exclude all churches and private residences because they are not places of public accommodation. A man's home and his holy ground must be given the widest possible latitude in all matter regarding how the property is administered, who is granted or denied entry etc.

I have clearly stated that I do not support bigots via my wallet. I do not patronize businesses that would deny my RKBA.

That is all well and good. But it is a dodge to my question about whether you support laws prohibit discrimination against currently protected classes.

Get the LDS to allow me to carry (CC at a minimum) in/on their property and I will vote to make our RKBA a protected class.

Done!!

The LDS Church has never prohibited carrying on their property. And much of their property is also fair game to carry IN the building as well. Only the interior of their houses of worship are off limits. Kind of like Jews and Muslims don't want you to bring pork in. Guns are welcome and even in Utah legal in the parking lot, in the administration building, in buildings at church farms, and in other buildings not set apart primarily for worship services.

Of course, you were not sincere in your offer but were merely trying to throw bombs, I think. Churches are currently exempt from all anti-discrimination laws when it comes to membership, hiring clergy, etc. See the Hosanna Tabor decision. To force churches to open their holy ground to unwanted firearms (or pork, alcohol, "sinners" as defined by the church, or any other unwanted item or person) would be to impose a radically new requirement on churches.

Businesses open to the public, however, have long been subject to anti-discrimination laws. Adding one more, small, protected class is not a fundamental shift in philosophy or practice.


I believe that our RKBA does not trump private property rights.

What is your believe about our skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or other currently protected categories? Do or should our disabilities trump private property rights?


Get the LDS to...

Why must the LDS ...

Get the LDS ..

I'm happy to discuss the differences between churches and places of public accommodation if you are interested in good faith discussion. It appears to me however that you are more interested in being anti-LDS than you are in being pro-RKBA. If you are merely wanted to throw bombs, I see nothing to be gained by other of us.

Charles
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"... In its decision, the Colorado Supreme Court asserted that despite the artistic nature of creating a custom cake, the act of making the cake was part of the expected conduct of Phillips' business, and not an expression of free speech nor free exercise of religion..."

If fairness to Masterpiece Bakers, there is more than a little suspicion that Craig and Mullins may have done a little 'venue shopping' of their own to find a bakery that might deny their business and permit a civil suit to be brought as there are a half-dozen bakeries in that area that advertise to do wedding cakes.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
"... In its decision, the Colorado Supreme Court asserted that despite the artistic nature of creating a custom cake, the act of making the cake was part of the expected conduct of Phillips' business, and not an expression of free speech nor free exercise of religion..."

If fairness to Masterpiece Bakers, there is more than a little suspicion that Craig and Mullins may have done a little 'venue shopping' of their own to find a bakery that might deny their business and permit a civil suit to be brought as there are a half-dozen bakeries in that area that advertise to do wedding cakes.

Yup.

Liberal legislative bodies and liberal judges are forcing some bakers to create cakes that amount to pro-homosexual messages even as they allow other bakers to decline creating cakes with anti-homosexual messages.

So there is no mistake. I support anti-discrimination laws, applied to places of public accommodation (as that term has been defined in law) for all general goods and services. I believe that in addition to currently protected categories, we should add homosexuals, polygamists, law abiding gun carriers, and union membership or non-membership.

I believe there should be a creative talent exception in all cases. If I want to buy a dozen cookies off the shelf, the baker should not be allowed to refuse me because of my race, gender, sexual orientation, religious or political affiliation, lawful possession of a gun, disability, etc. However, if I want the baker to do up a batch of custom cookies or a cake for a Mormon church event, a NOW event, a pro or anti-homosexual event, a GOP convention, an NRA rally, or any other event promoting any message, the baker should have every right to decline service. No one should be forced to employ his creative talent to promote a message contrary to his conscience. Religious objections must be given the highest deference. But when it comes to non-essential creative endeavors, even social, political, or economic objections should not be over-ridden.

I also believe that a man's home and holy ground (ie religious institutions) must be given the highest deference possible in accordance with religion's favored status under the 1st amendment. Private homes and houses of worship are not places of public accommodation. Churches enjoy and must enjoy an absolute right to hire or fire clergy as they see fit and to admit or expel members (and guests) as they see fit. Anything else is a gross violation of freedom of religion.

Charles
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--

I also believe that a man's home and holy ground (ie religious institutions) must be given the highest deference possible in accordance with religion's favored status under the 1st amendment. Private homes and houses of worship are not places of public accommodation. Churches enjoy and must enjoy an absolute right to hire or fire clergy as they see fit and to admit or expel members (and guests) as they see fit. Anything else is a gross violation of freedom of religion.

Charles

Yep - the government is supposed to be restricted from doing anything that smacks of supporting or promoting a nationally controlled religion.
 

RadBanker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
22
Location
Charlotte
This has been an absolutely fascinating discussion.

I am particularly glad to see the discourse on the legalist conception of anti-discrimination, versus a more...fundamental position on the subject.

The primary contradiction I believe Charles is effectively highlighting here is the difference between private property and personal property, and what exactly it means to extend access to property to "the public."

The secondary contradiction less emphasized is the difference between a constitutional RKBA versus a fundamental or natural right to defend oneself with those means appropriate to the present material condition, for our purposes, carrying small arms, but throughout history those tools have been different, and in the future will also be different.

I am firmly of the belief that a State and/or Constitution granting you a right is not a right at all, but a privilege that can be withdrawn without any reasonable recourse. Further, the government has an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of force and imprisonment, which is primarily used to selectively protect "rights," the only of which is truly treated as not-to-be-infringed is the right to privately own the means of production and therefore extract surplus labor value.

TL;DR KFC's private property > your RKBA because the constitution is designed to uphold capitalist relations of production.

Edit: Kropotkin is ******* awesome.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
This has been an absolutely fascinating discussion.

I am particularly glad to see the discourse on the legalist conception of anti-discrimination, versus a more...fundamental position on the subject.

The primary contradiction I believe Charles is effectively highlighting here is the difference between private property and personal property, and what exactly it means to extend access to property to "the public."

The secondary contradiction less emphasized is the difference between a constitutional RKBA versus a fundamental or natural right to defend oneself with those means appropriate to the present material condition, for our purposes, carrying small arms, but throughout history those tools have been different, and in the future will also be different.

I am firmly of the belief that a State and/or Constitution granting you a right is not a right at all, but a privilege that can be withdrawn without any reasonable recourse. Further, the government has an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of force and imprisonment, which is primarily used to selectively protect "rights," the only of which is truly treated as not-to-be-infringed is the right to privately own the means of production and therefore extract surplus labor value.

TL;DR KFC's private property > your RKBA because the constitution is designed to uphold capitalist relations of production.

Edit: Kropotkin is ******* awesome.

I concur on your theory that government's grant privileges, however, only due in part to the ignorance or fear of its citizens. Natural law and yes our Constitution protects are rights but only if we are capable of exercising them and knowing and protecting what they stand for.. The problem is that most folks are happy with their so-called privileges, and are lax in knowing and protecting their rights.. It is much easier to accept a privilege, than fight for a right..

Concerning property rights, the framers considered "property rights" the most favored right of that time, however today,with asset forfeitures and such other thief of property by government ( eminent domain) etc. No knock warrants, 21st America does not respect property with the same convictions of the founders.

Regarding prince Kropotkin, he was heavily influenced by Pierre Proudhon, arguable the first named Anarchist. Both their ideas of property rights, I do not agree thereof. Their ideologies were more inline with a communist system.. If all people were Saints and Angels, their philosophy would indeed work.

Proudhon in his, " Confessions of a Revolution".. stated, ' Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant and I declare him my enemy"... Clearly, on this, I agree!

On being Governed he opined.. " To be Governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by CREATURES WHO HAVE NEITHER THE RIGHT NOR TTHE WISDOM NOR THE VIRTUE TO DO SO.". ( Emphasis Mine)...

Rad, if your a fan of Prince Peter, if you have not already, please read What is Property, by Proudhon

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 
Last edited:

RadBanker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
22
Location
Charlotte
Rad, if your a fan of Prince Peter, if you have not already, please read What is Property, by Proudhon

My .02
Regards
CCJ

So glad to have your thoughts. I'm a rather committed anarchist-communist, and very familiar with Proudhon. He most certainly was a chief inspiration for those thinkers that most shaped my politics, but I deviate rather far from his theory on the point of collectivism versus individualism. As in I think, with the exception of property of course, that his writing more informs the politics of the libertarian right, whereas I land deeply libertarian, but also deeply left.

To go full-Proudhon would be a rather serious regression in economic progress, at least until such a time as automation takes better hold.
Possession ownership and/or use-ownership is pretty solid theory, I just think it needs more class analysis to truly function in an organized society.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
So glad to have your thoughts. I'm a rather committed anarchist-communist, and very familiar with Proudhon. He most certainly was a chief inspiration for those thinkers that most shaped my politics, but I deviate rather far from his theory on the point of collectivism versus individualism. As in I think, with the exception of property of course, that his writing more informs the politics of the libertarian right, whereas I land deeply libertarian, but also deeply left.

To go full-Proudhon would be a rather serious regression in economic progress, at least until such a time as automation takes better hold.
Possession ownership and/or use-ownership is pretty solid theory, I just think it needs more class analysis to truly function in an organized society.


Reasonable minded, liberty minded folks, can expound on their ideologies, and while we may disagree on said ideologies, we can respect each other as human beings.. What we all here have in common, is our belief, that it is our duty to protect ourself and our posterity and our God given right to keep and bear arms...

" No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions" John Locke--- A theory, I think we all can agree thereon!

Regards
CCJ
 
Top