People have been discussing this as a matter of protected classes, but I think this is better discussed as a matter of publicly protected acts and the conditions of a democratic society. The right to freely associate is one thing, but this issue insofar as it is intentionally aimed at retaliation for a publicly protected act, voting, feels more like a form of intimidation. I wonder whether there are (or should be) laws against voter intimidation which might apply? It is true that at the moment the single propane dealer has limited leverage because there are other dealers, but that is not essential to the situation. If it is the right of one propane dealer to do this, then it is the right of each and therefore all. And it shouldn't matter if Trumpkins, or more generally Republicans, are not a protected group, because this kind of behavior is problematic whether it is based on discrimination, per se, or whether it simply happens that the interests of the class of propane dealers align so that supporting a Democrat might be in the best interest of each. If they each therefore refuse to deal propane to those who will be voting against their interests, are they not leveraging their trade in a necessity into a form of intimidation? If any group of people who provide a basic service threatened to withdraw their service solely to those who voted a certain way (say physicians who hated Obamacare refused to serve Democrats) we'd have a crisis. So the hypothetical situation of no access to a necessity, e.g. propane, is still a real concern to the legitimacy of the dealer's business practices. It seems to strike at the heart of the basic civic respect that is necessary if a democratic system is going to work properly.
Maine propane distributor won't deliver to Trump supporters
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
Do you realize just how broad a statute would have to be in enforcement to accomplish the utopia you propose? It would not only be unconstitutional, it would have to be "void for vagueness."
Yes, I do realize what level of social norms I am talking about. It would be difficult to enforce one case at a time, but as a social norm it is nevertheless necessary to at least address the issue. It is a deep issue, but not really deeper than the laws that already prevent discriminatory practices or intimidation. Those too are deeply vague when you get right down to it; and they are only enforceable so long as the majority of people already accepting of the social norm not to discriminate. Where that common agreement is lacking, enforce requires the national guard or some other extreme measure. I do not think it is merely utopian to care about the underpinnings of the social contract; our political system is not amorphous, but is founded upon shared values, especially the values of respect for the rights of others to vote differently without undermining the common functional unity of the political body. Societies and political institutions can and do break down, and there is reason to think ours many be breaking down around us. And when they do break down it is often because people refuse to respect the implicit norms of how that society works. Failure to understand which norms are implicit in a liberal society is a serious problem. However, I do agree it would be extremely difficult to enforce. It is far far better to effect those conditions through education and socially acceptable forms of reprobation than legal enforcement. At the point where civil norms are no longer commonly accepted, enforcement is more likely going to devolve into a civil war.
It's a stretch, but I could see this as a form of voter intimidation; but then, lots of things could be voter intimidation that don't need to be considered such. Were he a monopoly supplier then I would be more inclined to allow this type of behavior. He is not a monopoly. He has competition. Let the chips fall where they may.
According to my spouse, there's no limit to my "neanderthal" makeup.Careful, I have 3.7% Neanderthal ancestry, far more than the general public and far more than the "one drop" test...
Who are we to demand the right to the fruits of another mans labor, skill or possessions ?
Abraham Lincoln and the US Congress abolished slavery in 1865. Respect or fear for your fellow man and the potential for profit or loss will sort the problem out without a dictatorial government forcing the issue.
A dictatorial government always creates more problems than it eliminates.
Nobody is advocating slavery, Bubba. It is possible that an economic response may sort out his issue, but frankly I wouldn't count on it. However, none of that is what matters. Like it or not we have one political body, and it is federal. If that body severs, we do not return to some antebellum Eden of states rights, but more like a post-diluvian Babel; only way worse. It is no more dictatorial for that body to maintain it's "civic integrity" by promoting civic values than it is for a family to maintain its integrity by promoting family values, by which I mean mutual fidelity, respect, commitment to unity in the face of diversity, etc. I'm not thinking that the justice department needs to sue the man; but I'm also not thinking that his actions are insignificant either.
But just to be clear, I am not concerned with the "enforcement" but I am concerned with the understanding. The topic was whether the actions of the propane dealer are wrong, and the attempted explanation was in terms of discrimination. That was, correctly, shown by HSV to be an incorrect explanation; both legally and morally, it is not about discrimination. What I offered is not a prescription for a big government solution, but an alternative theory of why it is wrong; his action is wrong not from discrimination, but because it is a fundamentally uncivil behavior that runs contrary to a core value of a liberal society, and undermines not a protected class but a protected "act," that is, voting. It is wrong not because it breaks a law, but because it breaks down the social underpinnings of respect for the way we settle law. It's not less analogous to cheating while playing baseball; more analogous to taking your ball and going home. When children act that way, good parents explain good sportsmanship; when a citizen acts this way, we need to be able to explain good citizenship, without being afraid of being told we are paternalistic.
You do realize that the communist movement started just to enforce the "golden mean" you're describing? What you get in trying to enforce that is a police state...
It didn't seem to me that that LA4Bama is advocating government intervention in this matter but rather saying the behavior is "uncivil" and that "we" i.e fellow citizens should be able to tell him and others that the behavior is uncivil.
I agree with LA4's statement;
What I offered is not a prescription for a big government solution, but an alternative theory of why it is wrong; his action is wrong not from discrimination, but because it is a fundamentally uncivil behavior that runs contrary to a core value of a liberal society,
As Tide HSV said the gas dealers moronic act is not a violation of the law. Wonder how long the Trump hater will stick to his guns by not selling to those who voted for Trump? Not long is my guess.
I agree with LA4's statement;
What I offered is not a prescription for a big government solution, but an alternative theory of why it is wrong; his action is wrong not from discrimination, but because it is a fundamentally uncivil behavior that runs contrary to a core value of a liberal society,
As Tide HSV said the gas dealers moronic act is not a violation of the law. Wonder how long the Trump hater will stick to his guns by not selling to those who voted for Trump? Not long is my guess.
I understand the points you are trying to make, but the power of the government should not be used liberally.
Without a doubt the propane dealer would be called worse than "deplorable" by myself. I will however defend his right to be a completely immoral self centered idiot. I will also chortle with glee if and when he loses his business, his friends and all respect from the community.
This guy is much like a 1st amendment flag burner. I will acknowledge his right to burn it. I don't have to support it or him in anyway. I and the majority of society will shun him and he will become irrelevant to us. This will defeat his original purpose. He will either learn or continue his idiocy until the lights turn on.
BTW, I WILL bet on economics and his neighbors to induce a change in his thinking before summer arrives !
I believe your solution would be perfect if men and their governments were not so flawed by self interest.
That's where he ended up, sort of. Here's where he started out:
When you have law governing private commerce that broadly, that's usually close to one half the population as a "protected class." As I said, to enforce that would take a police state. I don't know why that's not obvious. I stated at the outset that I regarded his behavior as undesirable, if not despicable in that climate. I'm trying to switch propane suppliers right now and, even with competition (not enough, IMO), it's a royal PITA. I decided to buy a #420 tank to replace my two 100 lb bottles. I have a certified piper who's worked for me before. He's certified to do inspections. I can buy the tank, have him install the switchover. However, before it can be certified, the propane company's own district manager must come and do his inspection - in February. I was offered a compromise. I could come with my guy to pick up the tank, and he can do the inspection there and they will then sign off on it and come and fill it at my residence in the future. The catch is that it must be picked up full! No big deal? Yes, big fat hairy deal! That runs the weight of it from 270 lb to almost 400 lb, which will be a bear for us, even with my tractor. Each of this guy's customers will be facing similar difficulties. If they empty their tanks, then they will have to pay what is around a $85 "inspection fee." Probably far higher in ME. The "inspection" consists of smearing soapy solution on the joints. He's a real SOB...
Latest threads
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 5
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 32
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-