(08-23-2010 06:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: Tomorrow clearly acknowledges the right, but would like for it to be rescinded for this one event. You can argue a slippery sliope etc etc etc, but he clearly acknowledges the right...
If it's rescinded in this case, then he is against their right to build a mosque in this specific instance. Which is what the question was.
There is no slippery slope. It's an outright refudiation of the entire concept of private property rights. While TomorrowHerd acknowledges the general concept of private property rights, he goes on to eviscerate it by saying that the Muslims attempting to build the mosque should not be allowed. If private property rights are subject to the whims of the majority, or government, they are all but meaningless (as they are now, thanks Kelo).
A right that can be rescinded because it would lead to an unpopular outcome is not a right at all. Our system of government was not set up to protect popular people, ideas, and projects. They don't need it.
Quote:as for i-45, can you commit violence against a building?
I think most people consider arson to be a violent act. It's also one in which it is impossible to determine if it will be non-lethal until after the fire is out. I don't want to quibble about whether or not arson is considered violent, because it doesn't matter.
Over & above his endorsement of arson, he also endorses any other non-lethal, note that he does not state non-violent but only non-lethal, means of shutting down the project. Presumably that would include physical assault of the workers or owners which is clearly a violent act.
Quote:and yeah, you've selectively cut and pasted from what I suspect was a pretty volatile thread.
Of course I selectively cut & pasted. How else would I provide examples? The post was long enough as it was. I included a link to the thread in question so people could review the full context on their own. If anyone is looking to find them, the quotes are more or less in chronological order.
Quote:As to what the government SHOULD do?? First of all, the Federal government has no business opening their mouths. Not Federal lands... No permit denied, no suit has been filed, no money raised, no nothing.... other than talk.
Agreed.
Quote:Certainly "the people" have a right to protest something, even if it is legal. I mean, racism was at one time legal, and people protested it. Wal-Mart has the right to build a store wherever it sees fit, but plenty of people protest that, and win...and I don't see the government "standing up for the rights of Wal-Mart". Why? Because it's "bad business" to build where people don't want you... Strip clubs have rights too, but you don't see the government stepping up there either. The government protects Cindy Sheehan's rights, and the rights of that lunatic church who says our soldiers "deserve it" to protest... but when people want to protest against the building of a mosque, you think they should step in??
I never suggested that the government should step in to stop the protesters. As long as they remain non-violent, they are free to protest as much as they want. The government does have an obligation to step in and stop violent protestors, but I have seen no signs that any of the protests so far have reached nearly that level.
Quote:As to your last line... when the government decides it needs to be involved in every aspect of life, people will often assume that the government is the answer to their ills... Just because someone is wrong in how something should be addressed, doesn't mean they are wrong in what they want. the VAST majority of people don't want it built, and yet the builders seem to ignore that... so yes, the government (meaning the legal system) IS the next step. NIMBY rules are imposed all the time.
I also never suggested that the people who oppose the mosque are wrong to do so. The assertion was made that noone opposed their right to build the mosque. That is clearly not the case and some of the protestors at the open meetings are additonal examples. Using the coercive power of the government to prevent construction of the mosque is to deny that the Muslims have a right to build it. The proper purpose of the government is to protect rights, not to violate them.
Quote:Answer me this... IF the unions refuse to work on the project, would you expect the government to FORCE them to do so? Or to invalidate union contracts??
I am not in favor of the government forcing anyone to work, except maybe welfare recipients. I fully support the right of construction workers and contractors, union or open shop, to choose not to work on a particular project (though I also support a company's right to fire an employee who refuses to work on a particular project if they so desire).
I also am not in favor of unions being able to stop this (or any other) project from completion, provided the Muslims can find sufficient resources who are willing to work with them voluntarily. I don't doubt that this would be very difficult to do, but times are tough in construction & money, as always, talks. If they have to bring in crews from out of state, so be it. If the unions want to protest & picket in front of the job, that's fine, as long as they do not impede access. If no union labor wants to be associated with the project in any way, shape, or form, that's fine. But they do not have the right to stop those who do.
I don't know anything about New York labor laws so I'm not sure about the invalidating the union contracts bit. If they are such that anyone working on a project in New York must belong to a union, then I am opposed to those laws. I believe that people have a right to work and to voluntarily contract with others (this does not mean that anyone is owed a job). In my experience, however, such requirements are only that non-union contractors must pay their employees at the union wage scale, not that they must actually unionize (at least in government contracting) so bringing in out of state open shop contractors should not be a violation of the law.
