Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

[Schmelzer]

If that were true, we wouldn't have needed the National Guard to desegregate the schools, or civil rights laws to protect the rights of blacks, gays and women. (And of course we would not have needed a Constitutional amendment to prohibit slavery - a purely private enterprise that simply purchases people.)

Sorry, there was no necessity to desegregate schools. There was, possibly, an ideological necessity for this, for some antiracist egalitarian ideology, that's all. There would be a reasonable point to enforce that state schools are supported by the state strongly proportional to the number of children they educate, independent of racial and other characteristics of the children - because these are taxpayers money, paid by all, so, all have equal rights to receive their part. But this is already all.

There are also no needs to protect some special rights for blacks, gays or women - in fact, this is a violation of equality. You may argue that such a violation of equality is just, some sort of return for injustice against them in the past. But this is simply injustice justified by other injustice. The only protection which is justified is equal protection against violence. Slavery is, obviously, a form of violence.

 

[billvon]

Sorry, there was no necessity to desegregate schools.

So you feel it is OK for public schools to deny a student education on the basis of his race?

There are also no needs to protect some special rights for blacks, gays or women . . .

Correct. There was a need to protect the SAME rights, rights that everyone should have - but were denied by private people either owning slaves or denying blacks the right to transportation, housing, education etc.

Slavery is, obviously, a form of violence.

So you have had violence committed against you?

 

[Schmelzer]

... we might also wonder where we will find the people willing to "remove the benefits to married people" for everyone. Such a law won't simply arise ex nihilo. It will require human crafting, passage, and enforcement.

The problem is a more fundamental one. There is no reason at all to have even a little hope that just laws will appear in a democracy.

So what, should I stop naming unjust laws unjust laws if just laws have no chance anyway?

There is the interest group of married people. They receive a lot of taxpayers money for themself. There is the group of gay couples. They want to participate, and also get the taxpayers money - instead of staying on the losers side of those unmarried people who pay for married people.

But the married people do not plan to share. They want all the money spend for married people for themself. A typical conflict in democracies - everybody wants to live on the costs of others, get a bigger part from the taxpayers money.

The reasonable, good law would minimize such redistributions. Because there is even a theorem of economic theory that "the state cannot make gifts" - the point is if the state tries to make gifts, there will be fight among the candidates for receiving the gifts. And all the investments of the participants in these fights are, essentially, losses for the society as a whole. But as long as these costs are lower than the benefit one can obtain, investing in such a fight is reasonable for the individuals. As a result, the loss for the whole society caused by fighting for receiving the gifts will become equal to the gifts themself.

But the democratic state is unable to recognize this and to reduce redistribution. Even in principle. To defend the part of the redistribution one already receives is the easiest fight, so, everybody who receives such benefits will be ready to defend them.

 

[Schmelzer]

So you feel it is OK for public schools to deny a student education on the basis of his race?

Only for a private school. For a public school, or any school living on taxpayers money, not.

So you have had violence committed against you?

Of course, not - I'm not an american, don't live in America, and in principle couldn't care less about violence in America. But as a libertarian, I support freedom fighting everywhere, even in the American police state.

And, of course, if the government forces me to close my hypothetical business on my private property, which offers services only for my friend, this would be a case of unjust violence by the state - because this business does not do any harm.

And it does not matter at all if the democratic majority likes this particular case of violence or not. Democracies like unjust laws.

 

[billvon]

For a public school, or any school living on taxpayers money, not.

You just said "Sorry, there was no necessity to desegregate schools." Now you are saying segregation is not OK. Which is it?

Of course, not -

Well, you said you were a slave, and that slavery is a form of violence.

And, of course, if the government forces me to close my hypothetical business on my private property, which offers services only for my friend, this would be a case of unjust violence by the state - because this business does not do any harm.

Not being an American you probably don't understand the amount of harm it did back in the 1950's and 1960's. My father lived through that; he thought the US might not survive the violence brought on by racism and bigotry.

 

[iceaura]

I defend the right to discriminate, and the right to follow bigoted practices (as long as these practices do not harm other people)

I'm curious about what bigoted practices you find harmless to the targets of that bigotry.

Let's make a short list, using Jews as our example of target: what practices of bigotry against Jews by their neighbors would you find harmless?

 

[pjdude1219]

No, I'm not missing the point - this is my point. Remove the benefits to married people, and the issue would not arise. If one wants to support people who raise children, support people who raise children - no reason to support people who are simply married.

still missing the point. there are benefits to marriage that more than just tax breaks. you can't remove those with out dismantling society so yes you are missing the point or more importantly like most people of your particular ideology don't really have one.

 

[Schmelzer]

I'm curious about what bigoted practices you find harmless to the targets of that bigotry.
Let's make a short list, using Jews as our example of target: what practices of bigotry against Jews by their neighbors would you find harmless?

You will try where I start to be afraid? By replacing blacks and gays by a minority group which is even more protected by political correctness? Ok, no problem, I'm independent, cannot loose a job, so I don't have to care.

But, of course, I do not make explicit lists, I see no reason for this, and simply give a general answer:

The practices which are considered harmless if directed against whites, man, christians, and heterosexuals should be also considered harmless if directed against other group, inclusive jews. And, revere, the same. Practices, which are considered harmless if directed against jews, blacks, women or gays should also be considered harmless if directed against other groups.

Thus, no special legal rights for any group. All people have to be treated by the law equally.

 

[Daecon]

I'm curious about what bigoted practices you find harmless to the targets of that bigotry.

I want to know this, too.

 

[Schmelzer]

still missing the point. there are benefits to marriage that more than just tax breaks. you can't remove those with out dismantling society so yes you are missing the point or more importantly like most people of your particular ideology don't really have one.

Of course, if you think that to stop distributing taxpayers money among families is impossible "with out dismantling society", you have completely different ideas about society. So we can agree to disagree, I simply see no sufficient common base for a further discussion.

 

[iceaura]

But, of course, I do not make explicit lists, I see no reason for this, and simply give a general answer:

I only ask for a few explicit examples, a short rather than an exhaustive list.
I'm not sure you have thought carefully about this, and your "general answer" seems to me an abstraction without any real content - but perhaps you can clarify the matter.

Here's the question again: what practices of bigotry against Jews by their neighbors would you find harmless?

 

[Schmelzer]

My answer already contains what is important for me.

There is, of course, the other point which is also important for me - the proportionality of the penalty. "An eye for an eye" is an upper bound for penalties. I find it always funny if many people argue against this princip as much too harsh (because it allows death penalty for murder) without recognizing the many violations of this upper bound in harsh penalties for minor wrongdoings. Incarceration is, in particular, a quite serious form of violence - thus, is justified only in response to quite serious forms of violence.

If one takes "an eye for an eye" seriously, it is clear that a refusal to give a service to somebody is simply nothing worth to be mentioned by law - simply because the penalty which would be justified following "an eye for an eye" would be so laughable that it makes no sense to persecute. Here, the adequate reaction of the society is simple moral condemnation of those who do such things.

 

[Daecon]

I defend the right to discriminate, and the right to follow bigoted practices (as long as these practices do not harm other people).

You still haven't explained which bigoted practices, specifically, "do not harm other people".

 

[Schmelzer]

You just said "Sorry, there was no necessity to desegregate schools." Now you are saying segregation is not OK. Which is it?

I have answered a posting where the use of violence (National Guard) to desegregate schools was justified. I think this is inadequate. I have made a more peaceful proposal - simply enforce that all public schools receive the same financial support, proportional to the number, but not the race, of the children.

This does not mean that segregation is ok. There should be no official way for a public school to reject a child because of its race. But I recognize, of course, that in a school system which was segregated, mandatory by law, a simple removal of the unjust laws does not automatically change the real life. This takes longer time. And, given that similar people prefer to live together, there will always remain regions with more black people, or more white people, or more asian people, or more latinos - and, correspondingly, the schools in these regions will have similarly children with origins different from the American average. So, some segregation will remain.

Well, you said you were a slave, and that slavery is a form of violence.

Of course, the general violence of states against the people in general is also directed against me. But I see no reason to discuss here my private life. And I have not described here something which has happened to me. Sentences of type "If I live in a state with such laws, and have a business, ... , then I'm a slave" do not mean that I actually live in a state with such laws and have a business.

 

[Schmelzer]

I want to know this, too.

You still haven't explained which bigoted practices, specifically, "do not harm other people".

Who cares what you want to know?

I have given the example which is relevant: If I have a shop on my private property, where I sell whatever I like to persons I like, but refuse to sell anything to people I do not like, I obviously do not harm people. This is the example which is relevant, because this is what, AFAIU, is actually forbidden at least in some states and for some types of business.

I understand that you want to go away from this simple and obvious example of injustice of "non-discrimination laws". But I see no reason to support you.

 

[Daecon]

So in other words: You don't actually believe the BS you say, or you were deliberately lying, or you were just trolling?

Yeah, I can believe that.

 

[iceaura]

My answer already contains what is important for me.

You have claimed that there exist bigoted practices by neighbors against Jews that are harmless to those Jews.

I can't think of any, so I'm asking for a couple of examples of what you have in mind, so I can get an idea of what you are talking about.

This, for example, is false:

If I have a shop on my private property, where I sell whatever I like to persons I like, but refuse to sell anything to people I do not like, I obviously do not harm people

It's not only not "obvious", but we have counterexamples ready to hand: The refusal of shopowners to do business with Jews in some places and times, and likewise with blacks in America in the recent past, did considerable harm to those Jews and blacks.

So one wonders if you have any examples of harmless bigoted practices, any at all. Your argument depends on their existence.

 

[Schmelzer]

So in other words: You don't actually believe the BS you say, or you were deliberately lying, or you were just trolling?

No. Learn to read. I sometimes use "I" in theoretical examples, where it is clear for everybody who can read, that I do not talk about real personal experiences, but a hypothetical scenario.

 

[Schmelzer]

You have claimed that there exist bigoted practices by neighbors against Jews that are harmless to those Jews.
I can't think of any, so I'm asking for a couple of examples of what you have in mind, so I can get an idea of what you are talking about.

Given your response about my example, we obviously do not need more. For me it is a classical example where it is obvious that the behaviour is not harmful beyond the harm which everybody has to live with if his enemies act against him in a civilized way.

Of course, say, boycotts may be harmful - and this is even the reason why one is doing them. But it is harm which one has to accept in a free society. If I go to court and accuse you of something, this may be harmful for you too, even if you win the case - but this cannot be forbidden in a civilized society (except for intentional false accusations). There are other harmful things I can do: Buying a house you wanted to buy by making a better offer. Harmful for you? Of course. But you have to live with this.

In the last two cases, I even start active actions. In the first two, I have a clear intention to harm especially you. None of these aggrevating circumstances is present if I simply do not make offers in my shop to people like you, and even inform you about this by a message on the door so that you do not loose time asking.

So, feel free to accuse me of an oversimplification by saying "no harm" instead of "no harm beyond the harm people cause constantly to others by not helping them or similar behaviour".

It's not only not "obvious", but we have counterexamples ready to hand: The refusal of shopowners to do business with Jews in some places and times, and likewise with blacks in America in the recent past, did considerable harm to those Jews and blacks.

There have been cases where harm was caused because such boycotts were combined with violence, not only against the jews/blacks, but also against those who did not participate in the boycott.
If no such violence or threads of violence have been present, this would be something which may be subjectively "not harmless" at all - for some people it is not "harmless" if somebody calls them "bigot" - but something one has to bear up.

So one wonders if you have any examples of harmless bigoted practices, any at all. Your argument depends on their existence.

No. If you insist on such an exaggerated notion of "harmless", where almost nothing is harmless, I may have to reformulate the arguments, avoiding the word "harmless". That's all. Of course, it is a known 1984 technique to redefine the words, so that after this I would be unable to formulate my argument simply because the word necessary to formulate it no longer exist. The argument itself does not depend on such techniques.

I use "harmless" in the sense of "not doing harm", or, in more detail, of "not doing something which causes harm", where "doing something" means some active behaviour, and not simply a refusal to do something. If you insist that "harmless" means something completely different, be it, then use whatever english word which has this particular meaning.

 

[Bells]

I defend the right to discriminate, and the right to follow bigoted practices (as long as these practices do not harm other people). This is very different from defending discrimination and such practices themself.

Yet you do not feel that people have a right to not be discriminated against and you do not feel that people have a right to defend and support the discriminated in society.

Why is that?

Just to illustrate with an example: I would also defend the right of string theorists to develop and defend string theory (in their free time). Does it follow that I defend string theory?

Okay..

In their free time? But you feel that people can be paid or make money out of discrimination.

And the usual way to attack them as "bigots" includes claims that they hate the people of the group in question.

Well, that is kind of what is going on here.

For many of those which are unjustly attacked that way this is, first of all, a big surprise - simply because they do not hate these people at all. And having members of these groups as friends is the immediate obvious counterevidence. That's why it is natural that such a defense is often used.

If they do not hate them, why discriminate against them?

You aren't exactly making a lot of sense and I have the feeling that you are trying to play devil's advocate or you have dug yourself into a deep dark and dank hole and you aren't quite sure how to extricate yourself with some of your dignity intact.

You completely ignore here some extremely important points.

Freedom is always about the freedom of those who don't behave like you want. Every dictator gives you the freedom to behave like he wants.

Then, every restriction of freedom will be somehow justified in the propaganda. The most obvious method to justify the restriction of freedom is, of course, that someone possibly may behave inappropriately if he is not forced to do everything in the right way. Those who have recognized this general scheme of freedom restriction, of course, do not take this propaganda seriously.

Then why are you advocating for state impose discrimination?

And what of the rights of people to not be discriminated against?

You appear to be all over people's right to discriminate, but you say absolutely nothing of people's rights to not be discriminated against. Why is that?

The most dangerous thing connected with restrictions of freedom is their misuse by those in power. The restrictions of freedom will never be only applied to those who really behave inappropriately. But, of course, against all those who do not behave like those in power want.

Then, even if one ignores all the misuses, there are important side effects of state persecutions, and most of them are not about the question "forbidden or not" but about inappropriate penalties. America is famous for extraordinary harsh penalties for minor violations - and the clear world leader in the number of prisoners (per population as well as absolute, despite the much greater number of people in China).

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

If those in power hate gays personally, then they will impose laws that discriminate against them or which would encourage people to discriminate against them. Which is essentially what this thread is about. We are arguing that such laws are dangerous because it is virtually state sanctioned discrimination, where people who break the law and discriminate are able to not face any penalties whatsoever. Which is unconstitutional, because as they say, all men are created equal. Therefore allowing laws that encourage and protect not treating all equally is literally the government of the day trying to impose its own bigotry on the people.

People have an absolute right to not be discriminated against. This is what it comes down to.

If my business is, with my own firm, to provide services - for money - to people I like, I do no harm. If I refuse to provide the service to some people I don't like, this will be forbidden, my whole existence is in danger. This danger is, clearly, too big. So, I will accept the partial slavery and serve also the people I hate. (Just to clarify - this is not about me, I'm an independent scientist who does not depend on receiving a wage.)

Once again, this makes no sense.

If your sole purpose of a business is to remain successful and have a high turnover of business and profit, you will not be providing services to just the people you like.

To like people, you generally have to know them.

If you do not, then it means you are wasting your businesses valuable time where you could be working to turn over a profit, to research and spy on your customers.

There is also the fact that what your customers do is their business. It is not for you to try to dictate your preferences by forcing discriminatory business practices on people.

The laws are clear. You are not allowed to discriminate against others for religious, sexuality, age, sex, etc. Providing services to everyone will not result in your existence being in danger. Perhaps you should stop jumping to such extremes.

Nor are you a slave. Slaves do not receive salaries.

Certainly, in your own home, you are free to be the bigoted and discriminatory arsehole you might want to be. However outside of the realms of your home, you are a citizen and part of a community and you have an obligation to not discriminate in providing your goods and services. Not to mention it is illegal for you to discriminate.

You have no right to impose your discrimination on others in the community, nor do you have a right to withhold goods and services based on your bigoted views. People have a right to not be harmed or discriminated against. That is a basic fundamental human right.

Fortunately, services which are forced, will have low quality. In fact, no reasonable person would accept a service from people who would prefer not to serve him, and even less force them to provide such services. So, the question is who are those people who want to enforce such unwanted services? The obvious suspection is that these are people who, for whatever reason, like to force other people to do things they don't like. So, this law does not protect reasonable people - who will volitionally leave places where they are not welcome, even if they have the right to stay there - but unreasonable people who like to harass and bully others.

I'll put it this way.

When people go out of their way to discriminate against others, take their money and then provide shoddy or low quality services, then that is when they get their backsides dragged to court or they lose their license and their ability to work in that field again.

No. They would be - in an ideal state, which never existed on Earth and cannot exist even in principle, simply because the power connected with the state is especially attractive for the worst of the people.

The state may not be ideal, but it is as good as we are going to make it. Ergo, laws work to ensure the protection of people's rights.

Very simple. Every private institution should have this right. Any institution which exists on taxpayers money - taken from all people - should serve all people.
If you are an unwanted person in a small village, it is anyway a good idea to leave.

Every private institution enjoys the benefits of what the Government provides, paid for by taxpayers. From police and fire brigades if they ever need it, to sweeping the roads to ensure their customers can reach them, to enacting and enforcing laws that protect their business in a variety of ways. Some even receive benefits from the Government to start up and/or maintain their business, and some are even given money by the Government to train people in a particular trade or to provide them with work experience.

So no, private institutions do not have that right.

If I'm offering on my property something for people I like, I do not impose anything on people I don't like. I do not, in particular, deny them anything they have a right to receive, because nobody has such a right - it is my volitional decision to make offers to people I like.

This sentence does not even make sense. Again..

How do you know which person or people you like or don't like? Are you breaking the law and spying on them? Digging into their private and personal lives?

Then, of course comes the fact, that you feel you have a right to involve yourself into the lives of others and pass judgement and withhold goods and services based on your personal prejudices.