Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

[iceaura]

Sorry, but I don't care about this. The example is, of course, general, but this gives you even more power to chose an example from this general category which presents my position in an unfavourable way.

Well, the claim on the table is that the reason you can't post actual examples is that there aren't any. So you do not care that this claim seems to be irrefutable?

The problem is that you don't seem to know how racial oppression actually works in real life, how bigots get together and do harm.
This is your private theory, not based on any evidence.

On the contrary, I have been posting quotes and responding to replies from you that seem to be based in complete ignorance of the economic, political, and historical facts of bigotry and oppression.

Like this:

Whenever boycotts by bigots will be supported by so many people that they become dangerous for some minority, they will be supported by every democratic state

Aside from you not knowing what a "boycott" is (a rich banker redlining his town is not boycotting anyone), the assertion has been proven false by a century of American history (all it takes is a few bigoted rich bankers and one KKK member for every five block area to confine all the black children in dangerous ghettoes)

In other words, the really harmful suppressions of minorities by bigots you cannot fight with the power of the state, at least not a democratic one

Any American can give you dozens of examples of really, truly, harmful suppression of minorities by bigots that were ended - or at least greatly reduced in harmfulness and scope - by having a democratic government forbid them. You have seen examples - the motel room problem, the business services problem.

I would require that the government makes it obligatory in their job contracts that their workers are obliged not to discriminate.

Yep. And that would automatically include those government contractors with employees of their own, of course. Government suppliers?

How about: anyone who wants their contracts enforced by the government.

 

[Schmelzer]

Well, the claim on the table is that the reason you can't post actual examples is that there aren't any. So you do not care that this claim seems to be irrefutable?

Ok, if there aren't any cases where people refuse to serve other people out of their own prejudices against some groups, the whole thread is about nothing. Nice to have talked that much about nothing. I personally have no problem with this, because for me it is a question of principle, which is important. People should have the right to discriminate - even if there would be no cases where they actually use these rights.

And that would automatically include those government contractors with employees of their own, of course. Government suppliers?

No. I imagine some guy buys some bananas, and after this tells: "I'm from the goverment. That means, by selling me bananas, you have become a government supplier, thus, are now obliged to fulfill all theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese regulations obligatory for governement suppliers."

How about: anyone who wants their contracts enforced by the government.

Explicitly no. You forgot that contracts are enforced by the government even if not above participants want it.

Moreover, this is somehow self-contradictory: The side who refuses simply does not want to have a contract with this person, nor a privately enforced one, nor a government enforced one.

 

[iceaura]

Ok, if there aren't any cases where people refuse to serve other people out of their own prejudices against some groups, the whole thread is about nothing.

Don't change the subject.

So no examples of what you were talking about come to your mind either? Join the club. There aren't any.

I personally have no problem with this, because for me it is a question of principle, which is important. People should have the right to discriminate

And the right to free speech, be secure in their houses and possessions, etc. Nobody's arguing against your fine principles.

They do have limits, of course. At least, most of them.

And that would automatically include those government contractors with employees of their own, of course. Government suppliers?
No.

I see. So poor sap wage workers who sign contracts with the government should sign away their rights, but rich businessmen who sign government contracts should not, because "principles".

How about: anyone who wants their contracts enforced by the government.
Explicitly no.

Why not?

You forgot that contracts are enforced by the government even if not above participants want it

No I didn't. I just assumed bigots would be free to harm citizens they were bigoted against (in an acceptable manner) in your world. They just couldn't turn around and demand government services whose contract obligations (no unacceptable harming of people from bigotry) they had not met. In your world.

 

[paddoboy]

People should have the right to discriminate - even if there would be no cases where they actually use these rights.

In an animal or pre-stone age society maybe. Even then, the bigot would eventually be an outcast.
In a civilised technically advanced society, no one has the right to discriminate, or be a bigot, and in such an event, should have the full force of the law brought down on him.

 

[Schmelzer]

So no examples of what you were talking about come to your mind either? Join the club. There aren't any.

I'm talking about the right to discriminate as an essential part of the freedom of contract. This right exist independent of the feelings of those who feel discriminated by the decision of others not to cooperated. What you are talking about becomes increasingly unclear.

I see. So poor sap wage workers who sign contracts with the government should sign away their rights, but rich businessmen who sign government contracts should not, because "principles".

Everybody who signs a contract gives away some of his rights. The rich businessman too - he signs an obligation to pay money to the worker once he works as described in the contract.

I just assumed bigots would be free to harm citizens they were bigoted against (in an acceptable manner) in your world. They just couldn't turn around and demand government services whose contract obligations (no unacceptable harming of people from bigotry) they had not met. In your world.

In my word, there would be no problem at all if some "government" does what he likes, as long as what he does is in agreement with the basic moral rule, the Golden Rule. But, of course, forcing people to pay "taxes" but naming other people who are doing the same "criminal racketeers" and putting them into prisons is a clear violation of the Golden Rule.

To legitimize their monopoly of criminal action, states usually offer some services to the public. There is, of course, no reasonable relation between the worth of the services and the "payment" for these services in form of extorted taxes. But, whatever, given that for other people it is forbidden to provide these services, they have no competition, and can claim they provide these services in the best possible form.

But if they would refuse these services to some people, this cheating scheme would no longer work. Given that these services are, essentially, necessary, those people simply would have to organize alternatives. And it would be obvious to everybody that they have the moral right to do this - because the state refuses to give them these services. So, the result would be predictable - or the self-organization of these services would be tolerated, leading to a much cheaper and better (market-based) replacement of the "government service", or these people would have to fight against the state for their survival. So, this is not a good idea for a state.

But, of course, one possibility - to let these people organize the services themself - would be an improvement of the actual situation. It would, of course, make it much more obvious that the state is simply robbery. Because the state would, of course, rob the same taxes even from those he does not even provide these miserable "state services". The modern, democratic system hides this robbery much better - there are so many "state services" that everybody receives some of them - and, stupidly, tends to believe that he is on the winning side in the redistribution game. No, he is not. On the winning side are the 1% of the really rich and an few politicians.

So, what is reasonable for the state is to force those who directly work for him not to discriminate. To work for the state is, clearly, a volitional decision, thus, to enforce this he has the right anyway. The services he provides should be, instead, provided without discrimination to everybody. For the simple reason that discrimination would lead to a creation of a group which is essentially forced to become criminal or revolutionary.

Instead, for a private firms discrimination is unproblematic. It does not even claim to have monopoly rights, there are competitors anyway, so those who do not get a service simply go to the competitors, which is a loss, but a loss one can afford.

 

[Schmelzer]

Paddoboy, learn to distinguish between a simple claim and a reasonable argument. In a reasonable discussion, simple claims have no value, arguments have.

Oh, sorry, I have forgotten, we discuss here politics in a democratic state. Ok, in such democratic discussions, simple claims without any argumentative support are as good as arguments, which, if to understand them takes longer than a few seconds, will be ignored anyway. What counts is how many other democrats like such claims.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, learn to distinguish between a simple claim and a reasonable argument. In a reasonable discussion, simple claims have no value, arguments have.
.

My simple claim is not just a simple claim.
If you disagree with the necessity of laws to protect the weak, and if you promote the right for the less decent amongst us, to carry out their sickening discrimination on any grounds, you really only have two choices. '[1] Become a politician and work towards what you believe: [2] Or leave society altogether and gather like minded individuals in a state of your own, away from the society that displeases you.
We live in a democracy. Get used to it.

 

[Schmelzer]

If you disagree with the necessity of laws to protect the weak, and if you promote the right for the less decent amongst us, to carry out their sickening discrimination on any grounds, you really only have two choices. '[1] Become a politician and work towards what you believe: [2] Or leave society altogether and gather like minded individuals in a state of your own, away from the society that displeases you.
We live in a democracy. Get used to it.

First of all, states have occupied the whole world. Thus, to create a "state of our own", which would not be a state at all, is not a viable option, at least not without a military organizations strong enough to allow defense against states. Thus, option [2] does not exist.

To become a politician, thus, to become a leader of these criminals and a liar (which is a necessity to win democratic elections) is certainly not an alternative for me, for simple ethical reasons. So, this choice does not exist for moral people too. (A few exceptions of morally acceptable politicians, like Ron Paul, do not change this - essentially he has not reached anything but some popularity, and at least some single No vote where otherwise would have been only Yes votes.)

In fact, I have no problem to get used to the fact that the world is subdivided by criminal gangs into territories controlled by them, and that everybody has to pay the blackmail named taxes to the particular criminal gang which controls the territory where he lives. Such is live. I pay the blackmail, and live my life. At least up to now I'm not forced to praise these criminals.

If we succeed to prevent the American unipolar world rule, and create a multipolar world order, there at least remains a freedom of choice between the different criminal gangs. I would certainly not choose the one which, controlling around 5% of the population, has around 25% of the world's prison population and the absolute leadership of imprisoned people per capita - there are more civilized, less criminal states.

And, of course, the right to discriminate is a right of the weak. The strong simply discriminate as much as they like, they use much more unethical things, without having to care about the laws, because the law will allow and support these forms of unethical behaviour. And you will not only remain silent, you will support them, because you always support authority.

 

[Daecon]

Maybe you should go and live in the Middle East, you may get a new perspective.

 

[paddoboy]

First of all, states have occupied the whole world.
To become a politician, thus, to become a leader of these criminals and a liar (which is a necessity to win democratic elections) is certainly not an alternative for me, for simple ethical reasons.
In fact, I have no problem to get used to the fact that the world is subdivided by criminal gangs into territories controlled by them, and that everybody has to pay the blackmail named taxes to the particular criminal gang which controls the territory where he lives.
And, of course, the right to discriminate is a right of the weak. The strong simply discriminate as much as they like, they use much more unethical things, without having to care about the laws, because the law will allow and support these forms of unethical behaviour. And you will not only remain silent, you will support them, because you always support authority.

Really Schmezer, its a wonder you have the nerve to get out of bed of a morning with all this world wide conspiracy going on

 

[Schmelzer]

Really Schmezer, its a wonder you have the nerve to get out of bed of a morning with all this world wide conspiracy going on

Which conspiracy? Simple self-interest. Learn what means conspiracy, instead of using it simply, without any base, as a bad word.

Middle east - the region where the US pays a lot of money to extremally horrible criminal gangs like Al Qaida or ISIS to overthrow the criminal gangs in power - is not really a safe place. May be a few years after the US really gives up the fight for world leadership. Then, it will not take a very long time until all these US-paid gangs will be killed.

But, of course, if the only choice would be Middle East or US, my preference would be Middle East.

 

[spidergoat]

Really Schmezer, its a wonder you have the nerve to get out of bed of a morning with all this world wide conspiracy going on

Libertarians are delusional.

 

[iceaura]

I'm talking about the right to discriminate as an essential part of the freedom of contract.

And you are failing to provide the concrete examples that would clarify the limits you envision on such a right. All other rights have limitations and responsibilities, without which they make no sense, contradict each other, and in the extreme cease to exist.

Everybody who signs a contract gives away some of his rights. The rich businessman too - he signs an obligation to pay money to the worker once he works as described in the contract.

The issue was which rights they should be required to sign away. You stated explicitly that the government should insist that the job contracts its wage workers sign deny them their right to discriminate according to their bigotries. But you said the government should not include such clauses in the job contracts it insists that businessmen sign, or the job contracts it insists that its suppliers sign. I'm wondering why some people get to keep their rights when they sign contracts with the government, and others don't, in your world.

The only obvious difference seems to be their economic status - but feel free to enlighten me.

But, of course, one possibility - to let these people organize the services themself - would be an improvement of the actual situation

The actual situation, in my town, is that those people have organized themselves to provide these services. They call the organization their "government". That's the name for the organization you are talking about, set up by the people in my town to provide such services.

 

[iceaura]

I would certainly not choose the one which, controlling around 5% of the population, has around 25% of the world's prison population and the absolute leadership of imprisoned people per capita - there are more civilized, less criminal states.
- - -
But, of course, if the only choice would be Middle East or US, my preference would be Middle East.

The State with the highest proportion of its population confined by law to structures they cannot leave at will is Saudi Arabia - about 50%.

 

[Schmelzer]

Libertarians are delusional.

Non-libertarians like to use personal attacks without providing arguments. This is what one has to expect from people who have no consistent arguments.

 

[Tiassa]

Breakdown

​

They send me out to locate all the dead so I can tally 'em. And I take my paycheck and buy whiskey to chase the Valium. May not deserve to serve, but you will whether you like it or not. No, no―nobody's looking for a Savior, they're just looking for everything you've got. Everything. And I said, "It's alright," and, "It's okay. Just learn to live live another day. Kingdoms rise, and kingdoms fall. I want to be there when we watch it all break down." And you know it. Don't you feel like watching it all burn down to the ground? Yeah, when I break down, I'm gonna show it. And all my flames will rise thorugh the skies with a terrible sound. Yeah, when I break down.

―Floater, "Breakdown"↱​

... its a wonder you have the nerve to get out of bed of a morning with all this world wide conspiracy going on

You know, it occurs to me that when some people said human rights for homosexuals was a threat to civilization, we probably should have paid attention. I mean, look at all this our neighbor is unloading. All this over gay people having human rights. I mean, at some point, there's a "Holy shit!" moment that happens when it finally sets in just how important this obsession is to some people.

Dale Hansen↱ recently reminded our Christian neighbors in these United States:

The reality is that there are few if any places in the world where it is better to be Christian than the U.S., so pretending that being forced to abide by the constitution is somehow a "war" comes off a lot like the spoiled rich kid whose parents won't upgrade the radio on the new BMW I8 they are buying for his birthday. It just makes you look uninformed, selfish and silly.​

What gets me about this fake libertarianism is that it essentially has a cyclical, exploitative value about it. Okay, so, whatever, human rights for homosexuals is just so important that we're now discussing the fallacy and danger of statehood.

Smash the State. Okay. Whatever.

Now: What happens next?

It seems to me that the people resettle into a new societal hierarchy that ossifies into the State. Perhaps the societal endeavor even recovers what it lost when it tore itself to pieces. And maybe people will even make some progress. Except ... it's the State.

Smash the State.

People resettle into a new societal hierarchy that ossifies into the State. Perhaps the societal endeavor even recovers ....

No, really. Where is this going? What about human beings having evolved specialized social skills means we should abandon the societal endeavor? It's not like people will suddenly become altruistic; for all we might bawl as a species about cruelty in our societies, history shows civilization is itself a necessarily cruel affair. The problem with ranting about the state monopoly on coercive force is that most people recognize that someone, somewhere will hold that monopoly in their lives, and it most likely won't be them. While pretty much anybody can find a complaint about the government, most people aren't prepared to call the whole civilization thing off.

In a way, this only really makes sense in a very primal context. We all want vindication; everybody wants to be right. But for some people, it seems that desire has perverted into something sadistic, as if they would look upon the destruction of civilization with satisfaction and say, "Ha! I can't believe I convinced them to do that to themselves!"

I mean, we all know the feeling, but just how much do we really want to invest in it?

And, you know, really? Over queers being human, too?
____________________

Notes:

Hansen, Dale. "Christian Persecution Is a Problem, Just Not in the U.S.". The Huffington Post. 19 May 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 3 June 2015. http://huff.to/1Et7yM3

 

[Schmelzer]

And you are failing to provide the concrete examples that would clarify the limits you envision on such a right.

You need something to "envision" a clear and simple statement? What is unclear with the notion of complete freedom of contract, which includes the complete freedom not to sign contracts if one does not like it?

All other rights have limitations and responsibilities, without which they make no sense, contradict each other, and in the extreme cease to exist.

A, you simply cannot imagine to live in a free world, you feel uncomfortable without some government restrictions for what to do. But, in this case, you have a simple possibility in a libertarian world: Choose a religious sect - they will give you as much restrictions of your freedoms as you like.

The responsibility of signing a contract is simple - you have to fulfill the contract after this. If you don't, everybody will be informed about this, and will, next time, make precautions before interaction with you.

The issue was which rights they should be required to sign away. You stated explicitly that the government should insist that the job contracts its wage workers sign deny them their right to discriminate according to their bigotries.

Yes. But, let's add, only during their job. What they do in their free time should not be unnecessarily restricted too.

I'm wondering why some people get to keep their rights when they sign contracts with the government, and others don't, in your world.

The basic idea is simple: 1.) The services provided by the state should not be allowed to discriminate between the taxpayers. Whatever is necessary to reach this has to be done. 2.) Whatever goes beyond guaranteeing this is an unnecessary restriction of freedom, thus, should be avoided.

Thanks for your info about Saudi-Arabia, but your careful wording already suggests that it is about a slightly different question. In some sense, whenever I'm in some state, I'm confined in some structure I cannot leave at will - the border of the state. If I want to leave, I always have to go through some procedure named border control, and it is unclear if they allow me to leave. The incarceration rate of Saudi Arabia is quite moderate, with 162 vs. 707 for US per 100,000 according to Wiki.

 

[iceaura]

What is unclear with the notion of complete freedom of contract, which includes the complete freedom not to sign contracts if one does not like it?

You have been asked to provide a couple of examples in a particular situation of great significance, specifically described above, and have so far been unable to do so. I'm not sure exactly where your difficulty lies, but suspect it to reside somewhere in a lack of clarity concerning "complete freedom of contract", a phrase which on its face is as meaningless as "complete freedom of motion", and is only indirectly related to the matter at hand: acceptable vs unacceptable discrimination.

The basic idea is simple: 1.) The services provided by the state should not be allowed to discriminate between the taxpayers. Whatever is necessary to reach this has to be done. 2.) Whatever goes beyond guaranteeing this is an unnecessary restriction of freedom, thus, should be avoided.

None of the contracting scenarios I posted go beyond that, and all are necessary to fulfill your criterion #1. But you reject them. Why?

A, you simply cannot imagine to live in a free world, you feel uncomfortable without some government restrictions for what to do.

On the contrary: I have a keen interest in maximizing my freedom. But maximum freedom is not obtained by minimizing government restrictions.

In some sense, whenever I'm in some state, I'm confined in some structure I cannot leave at will - the border of the state

Saudi women cannot leave their houses at will. How is that different from incarceration?

 

[Schmelzer]

You have been asked to provide a couple of examples in a particular situation of great significance, specifically described above, and have so far been unable to do so. I'm not sure exactly where your difficulty lies, but suspect it to reside somewhere in a lack of clarity concerning "complete freedom of contract", a phrase which on its face is as meaningless as "complete freedom of motion", and is only indirectly related to the matter at hand: acceptable vs unacceptable discrimination.

I'm also not sure exactly where your difficulty lies understanding the meaning of "freedom of contract", so I see no way to help you to understand it.

None of the contracting scenarios I posted go beyond that, and all are necessary to fulfill your criterion #1. But you reject them. Why?

Because I think differently.

On the contrary: I have a keen interest in maximizing my freedom. But maximum freedom is not obtained by minimizing government restrictions.

There may be, of course, also private and cultural restrictions of freedom, but in modern democracies minimizing government restrictions would be the most important way to maximize freedom. Of course, not of the freedom to rape and enslave others, which you seem to propagate.

Saudi women cannot leave their houses at will. How is that different from incarceration?

The difference is that this is based on culture, therefore I would guess (without having any actual information about this particular culture) that even a majority of those "incarcerated" women supports this.

At least it is quite typical for cultural restrictions of freedom that they are supported even by large majorities of the opressed people. (And american democracy would be another typical example for this).

 

[Daecon]

What exactly is the point you're trying to make and how do you think people will respond to it?