No. You’ve never put forward an argument for them.
I suggest you read the OP and then get back to me.
JWK
The poison connected with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialism is, the most productive, hardworking wage earners across the country ___ some in our nation’s inner cities having two and three jobs to extricate themselves from poverty ___ are specifically targeted by Cortez’s taxation and robbed of the bread they have earned, which in turn discourages them to be productive, and thus begins a Nation’s decline.
I’ve been trying to pay attention, but there’s one thing I haven’t been able to determine:
Under your interpretation, are Jim Crow laws legal, permissible.
What about situations like restaurants where whites have standard toilet facilities, but blacks have to use an outhouse in the back.
Was the constitution meant to sanction degrading actions.
The OP is about Ginsburg, not “free association”.
Contrary to you assertion, it does “put forward an argument”.
JWK
One of mankind’s most fundamental rights is the right to mutually agree in contracts and associations, a right despised by the intolerant ACLU and those who work to destroy our free market system.
Not about rights.
Well then, stick to what the OP is about!
JWK
I’m talking about this right here:
The world you live in must be very bleak if you believe that activists staging sit-ins need to be removed by force. It seems as if you don’t think people are capable of doing the right thing without state violence to make them do it. The owner try persuasion instead.
I noticed you never answered the question: Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?
JWK
The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream
Depends on the rights.
There are a number of rights associated with property ownership. Together, these rights are often referred to a “bundle of rights”. A few of the rights Included in the bundle of rights associated with property ownership are, the right of “possession”; right of “control”; right of “disposition”; right of “exclusion”.
Under the right of exclusion, an owner of property is free to limit who may enter upon said property and this right has long been viewed as an inalienable right.
Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?
JWK
"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
Rights aren’t unlimited.
You didn’t answer the question.
Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?
JWK
And I noticed that you didn’t answer mine: Are you in favor of using violence against peaceful sit-in protestors?
Violence? I don’t know what you mean by that word. But I do support using the minimal necessary force to remove people from private property if the owner of said property wants them ejected, and that includes protestors.
Now, Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership has been encouraging the current ongoing invasion of our southern border since 1985 when amnesty was granted to 2.5 million illegal entrants in return for legislation, the object of which was to “prevent and deter the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.” And here we are today, illegal border crossings have not been prevented, and there are 10-15 million new illegal entrants while the invasion continues
Then invest in a dictionary.
Supporting the use of “force” to remove them is the same as supporting the use of violence to remove them.
People like this guy?
No, absolutely not. I’m just opposed to the use of violence. Persuasion should be used instead.
I do not appreciate you insulting and unsubstantial comment. As I previous wrote, I support using the minimal necessary force to remove people from private property if the owner of said property wants them ejected, and that includes protestors.
Please do not mischaracterize my comments.
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership has been encouraging the current ongoing invasion of our southern border since 1985 when amnesty was granted to 2.5 million illegal entrants in return for legislation, the object of which was to “prevent and deter the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.” And here we are today, illegal border crossings have not been prevented, and there are 10-15 million new illegal entrants while the invasion continues
“Force” and “violence” are used interchangeably in the English language.
In any case, I edited that line to be less offensive.
