Ok, interesting thoughts here. Does government 'interfere' with private business to restrict rights or to secure them?

That's a pretty general question. Do you mean in regards to hiring practices, health regulations, tax regulations, environmental regulations, etc? This could probably be split into a few topics. Please clarify.

I was thinking on a purely philosophical level in a way. Let me rephrase. Does the government have a responsibility to guarantee the rights set out in the constitution, or does it merely restrict government?

Some government intervention I do support and others I do not. I do support intervention when a business is not hiring people based on race when race is not an inherent part of the job. On the other hand, if a business has a discriminatory policy of only hiring young women to wait on tables government should not interfere. It should not be illegal to only have young female waitresses but it should be illegal to have a work force of only one race.

Equal opportunity does not seem a good term for this to me. Public education is the means to equal opportunity. This seems more like enforcement of acceptable ethics.

These ethics should be applied to government and to citizens.

I agree with you to an extent, but how can government set different standards for race and gender?

It's an argument of lesser evils.

Could you provide a "constructive" post? How does your comment further this debate?

Forgive me for being snarky, but how does yours? I was just trying to restate my opinion in the context of Grayseal's post.

Ah constructive post... ok. let me see. Does the constitution exist to limit the power of government to keep it from infringing on a person's rights; or does it exist to empower the government to guarantee a person's rights?

How does government set standards? I am missing the point of your question, I believe, as the answer would seem to be via legislation or court interpretation of law.

I was attempting to suggest that society has ethics, a reflection of the community's collective standards . While it will never be ethical to discriminate on the basis of race, I believe society thinks it is OK to have an establishment which uses gender as a basis to provide entertainment to their customers. In these sort of cases, discriminatory laws are not applicable as defined by those ethics.

As I said, I agreed with you, but I was raising the question for debate on how it was OK to discriminate on the basis of gender, and not OK to discriminate on the basis of race.
Some will say that this is a double standard. You can change neither race or gender, well normally you can't.

Replying to Ultimatejoe...IMO the constitution exists to limit the power of government from infringing on a person's rights. I believe this is what the founders had in mind anyway.

The founding father's saw the need to limit government and to protect people from the abuses of government. The Constitution should insure that state, local and federal governments do not discriminate; it should not prohibit individuals from discriminating against each other. Who I associate with is no business of government. A Tennessee woodsman by the name of Davy Crockett once said "Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have." George Washington expressed his fear of government more eloquently, "Government is not reason and it is not elegance, it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Things look grim for us who still wish for a Constitutional government limited to the powers set forth in Article I Section 8 and the Amendments in our constitution.

by Dontreadonme


I do not see this question as reflective on the point I was making (and poorly made). The hiring of young female waitresses is the first example that came to mind when I read UltimateJoe's topic. For another example, a bit of a weaker one but maybe this will work, how about a stage company putting on a production of Roots but does not allow any white to try out for the part as the narrator/lead? I believe the ethics of society would say it is permissible to discriminate on the basis of race when casting for this role.

Some would argue it is discrimination but most would not. I do not think government should intervene in these cases. I do think discrimination should apply to more than just government but not in all cases of discrimination.

But according to this logic the state has no right (or obligation) to enforce laws. After all, what is murder other than interfering with one's right to live? What language in the constitution, if you don't mind my asking (I read it for hthe first time in about 5 years this morning) leads you to believe that it exists for the first reason I mentioned and not the second?

[quote=Ultimatejoe,Feb 17 2003, 10:49 PM] [he founding father's saw the need to limit government and to protect people from the abuses of government. The Constitution should insure that state, local and federal governments do not discriminate; it should not prohibit individuals from discriminating against each other. Who I associate with is no business of government. A Tennessee woodsman by the name of Davy Crockett once said "Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have." George Washington expressed his fear of government more eloquently, "Government is not reason and it is not elegance, it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Things look grim for us who still wish for a Constitutional government limited to the powers set forth in Article I Section 8 and the Amendments in our constitution. [/QUOTE]
But according to this logic the state has no right (or obligation) to enforce laws. After all, what is murder other than interfering with one's right to live? What language in the constitution, if you don't mind my asking (I read it for hthe first time in about 5 years this morning) leads you to believe that it exists for the first reason I mentioned and not the second? [/quote]
You need to read Article I Sec 8 of the Constitution. government does have the right to pass laws. The federal government is limited to passing laws that are needed to carry out the powers designated to it. The basic purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and private property. Laws are needed to do this. Government is a neccesary evil.

Try reading the Bill of Rights, what you see is limitations of federal power; not intrusions of federal power. What the founder's feared, and what their opponents feared even more was a overly powerful central government.

I read the Bill of Rights. Seems to me that it only serves to check the powers spelled out in the vast majority of the constitution. I do NOT see the words necessary evil anywhere in the constitution.
I still don't understand this perplexing division you seem to be drawing. If this U.S. government ISN'T responsible for guaranteeing the rights of its citizens, what is the point of spelling them out in the constitution?