Applying the Aspirational Values
- Racism certainly violates the Aspirational Values. A racist is not a good candidate to join the 3L Movement.
- We should seek to inspire those holding racist views to be more open-minded, tolerant, and kind toward others different from themselves.
- The 3L Movement seeks to achieve a world in where all people are judged solely by the content of their character. We cannot reach a peaceful society until we evolve past the irrational, ignorant, and immature views that lead to a desire to disassociate from another person based on immutable characteristics or peaceful lifestyle choices.
- The human family is composed on many diverse races. There is no problem in celebrating racial and cultural differences in healthy and inclusive ways. There is no need to pretend we are all the same. We are all different from each other in countless ways. Loyalty to a particular group can be either healthy or unhealthy if taken too far.
Applying the Legal Principle
- The Legal Principle applied to racism similarly to how it applies to free speech.
- A virtuous society cannot be mandated. So long as nobody violates the ****Legal Principle, people should be legally free to live however they choose, even in ways we disagree with or despise. A free society requires that we legally tolerate nonviolent racism.
- Nonviolent Racism:
- While an entirely ignorant and immoral position, speaking or writing derogatory views about a person or group based solely on different immutable characteristics is consistent with the right to free speech and does not violate the ****Legal Principle.
- People are entitled to believe and say whatever they want about the world, even things that are immoral, ignorant, or entirely wrong, so long as they do not violate the Legal Principle.
- Racists can be subjected to criticism, boycotts, and peaceful ostracism from those who detest such views.
- A private business owner can refuse to do business with anyone they choose, even for prejudiced reasons. Such decisions are foolish for many reasons, but the fact remains that nobody properly has a legal right to insist upon doing business with an unwilling person. The majority of society who are not racist would be motivated to boycott all such racist-owned companies. By appealing to a wider customer base, non-racist businesses can be expected to outcompete.
- Trying to eliminate nonviolent racism by force or coercion, such as by implementing laws that prohibit nonviolent racism, is ineffective and violates the Legal Principle.
- Peaceful coexistence between groups that disagree about morality is always preferable to endless struggle, aggressing, and even war.
- As with the right to free speech, the rules that restrain the government differ from those that apply to private citizens, groups, and corporations.
- In the United States, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibit state and federal governments from discriminating based on various immutable characteristics. This restriction upon government action is proper and should apply to all governments everywhere.
- When governments act, they act on behalf of all people. As such, all government actions of any type must be entirely free from racism in all cases, with no exceptions.
- All wholly private educational institutions and corporations should be free to institute and publicize whatever affirmative action programs they see fit to remedy any past injustices by preferring students possessing whatever immutable characteristics they seek to favor. The law should permit private businesses to hire or admit anyone they want on any basis they choose.
- This exclude educational institutions that receive government money with strings attached mandating institutional compliance with the Equal Protection Clause. When the government taxes people to obtain money to then guarantee student loans, it violates the Legal Principle in any event.
- Violent Racism
- As acts of aggressing, whether motivated by race or not, are always violations of the Legal Principle. Such conduct should immediately be terminated and prosecuted.
- Reparations
- The issue of reparations is primarily a factual question about determining who is genuinely the rightful owner of a particular property, which can be challenging.
- The rightful owner of any property ought to have legal possession in all cases.
- Well-established rules in property and tort law exist. The person who claims they are legally entitled to some particular property, personal or real, should be allowed to bring a claim in court to resolve the dispute fairly. Courts are generally well-equipped to settle such claims.
- That an innocent person is a member of some larger group that historically included individuals who violated the Legal Principle is irrelevant. Courts also properly reject claims when damages are speculative. History is replete with unjust acts committed against countless people for countless unjustified reasons. Unfortunately, the history of humanity is not a study of kindness, fairness, or respecting property rights. Indeed, all nations, religions, groups, and even people have suffered aggression. In this regard, nobody has lived a perfect life. Attempting to remedy past injustice by inflicting current injustice on innocent people is no solution. It also violates the Legal Principle. We should hold people accountable for their actions. However, people are not legitimately responsible for the crimes of their ancestors or even their parents or siblings. Punishing people for their immutable characteristics because other people with those immutable characteristics previously violated the Legal Principle is entirely unjust, racist, and violates the Legal Principle.
- On the other hand, if it can be appropriately proven in court that somebody wrongfully dispossessed the rightful owner of their property and that such property is currently in the possession of another person, the law should remedy that situation by either returning the property to the rightful owner or awarding damages. For example, if a rightful heir can prove his great-great grandfather’s watch was stolen and is currently in another’s possession, the heir should be awarded legal possession. While the current watch owner may have a legal claim against another person for damages, the heir should legally possess the property if the heir has a higher legal claim to the watch. The same analysis applies to real property. Concern about whether a seller has a legitimate legal title to a property is why many real property buyers intelligently secure title insurance.
- Slavery is an evil that previously existed in many countries and persists today in some places. Tragically, many groups have suffered institutionalized injustice in many countries throughout history. To the extent we can accurately identify wrongfully appropriated property by employing the same legal rules we apply to any other case, courts should right the wrong by returning that property to the rightful owner.
