Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

[spidergoat]

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

Oh I have arguments too. Do you have examples where your pet theory has ever worked? You say we don't need laws to prevent corporate dominance and oppression of society, but practical reality has proven otherwise.

 

[iceaura]

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.

You were asked to provide examples of "acceptable" vs "unacceptable" bigoted practices directed against Jews, using your own criteria of "acceptable harm" such as civilized people expect. You don't need to help anyone understand anything - just provide examples of what you claim exists, and we'll figure it out from there.

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.

All you have to do is acknowledge that some countries in your preferred choice, the Middle East, incarcerate (in an obvious sense, by law confined to a structure and unable to leave at will) a much higher percentage of their population than the US does. And that you overlooked that obvious fact, as you have others.

Whether the culture supports its laws or not is beside the point - American culture supports its laws, after all (people in jail for murder may want to be free themselves, but very few want the laws against murder repealed).

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.

You have provided no evidence of thinking at all. Why do you, "differently", reject them? On what grounds?

in modern democracies minimizing government restrictions would be the most important way to maximize freedom

Evidence or argument needed. My freedom of action largely depends on my government restricting those who would otherwise restrict me, as they have restricted others like me here in the past here and in other places now.

 

[Schmelzer]

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

My point is that the right to discriminate is a fundamental human right, and an essential part of the freedom of contract. Thus, attempts to restrict this right are dangerous steps toward a totalitarian state.

I do not expect any positive reactions. To defend a right to discriminate is politically incorrect, thus, heavy emotional reactions have to be expected. On the other hand, I do not expect any reasonable counterarguments. Then I have seen the argumentation in favour of a "right to discriminate" the first time (by H. Hoppe) I was also quite surprised and have tried to find counterarguments, but not found them. I disagree with Hoppe in many points, but here his arguments have convinced me.

 

[Schmelzer]

Oh I have arguments too. Do you have examples where your pet theory has ever worked?

No, and this is indeed a good argument.

But I have found a good explanation. Anarchy works nicely everywhere where the reputational enforcement of contracts works. Where the reputational enforcement does not work, other methods of enforcement of contracts - in particular enforcement by police, thus, a state - become necessary.

In the past, before the internet, this problem has restricted the viability of anarchy to small communities, where all people know each other, and, therefore, reputational enforcement of contracts works. If a community becomes too large for reputational enforcement - which happens in towns around 10 000 people - this leads to the creation of other ways to enforce contracts, namely states.

But this is a problem of the past. Today, a global reputational system can be created. And, once it is created and works, it will replace the state.

You say we don't need laws to prevent corporate dominance and oppression of society, but practical reality has proven otherwise.

Not really. Economic theory predicts that corporation will dominate, through lobbies, democratic states. This dominance will be greater for greater and more centralized states.

This theory nicely corresponds with reality, where corporations dominate, where we have a large domination of lobbies in large states - the USA and EU - and democracy working only, if it works at all, in very small states or very decentralized states (Swiss).

 

[Randwolf]

My point is that the right to discriminate is a fundamental human right, and an essential part of the freedom of contract. Thus, attempts to restrict this right are dangerous steps toward a totalitarian state.

I do not expect any positive reactions. To defend a right to discriminate is politically incorrect, thus, heavy emotional reactions have to be expected. On the other hand, I do not expect any reasonable counterarguments.

My point is that the right [not] to [be] discriminate[d against] is a fundamental human right, and an essential part of [basic freedoms] the freedom of contract. Thus, attempts to restrict this right are dangerous steps toward a [fascist] totalitarian state.

I do not expect any positive reactions [from Schmelzer]. To defend a right to [not be] discriminate[d against] is politically incorrect [amongst fundamentalist and other wingnut groups], thus, heavy emotional reactions have to be expected. On the other hand, I do not expect any reasonable counterarguments [from the wingnuts].

Fixed!

 

[Schmelzer]

You were asked to provide examples of "acceptable" vs "unacceptable" bigoted practices directed against Jews, using your own criteria of "acceptable harm" such as civilized people expect.

Unacceptable practices are aggression, that means, violence against people or property which is not justified as retaliation, which violates the Golden Rule.

Acceptable practices are practices which do not violate the Golden Rule, and, in particular, the refusal to sign contracts with members of the group which this bigoted people hate.

All you have to do is acknowledge that some countries in your preferred choice, the Middle East, incarcerate (in an obvious sense, by law confined to a structure and unable to leave at will) a much higher percentage of their population than the US does. And that you overlooked that obvious fact, as you have others.

First of all, Saudi-Arabia is after Israel the closest ally of the US in the Middle East, and, from my point of view, one of the most dubious states not only in the Middle East, but the whole world. Thus, Saudi-Arabia is certainly not my preferred choice. If you want to defend the world champion of incarceration, the US, by claiming that one of the worst states of the world, and one of the closest US allies, is even worse, be it. Argue with Wikipedia if one has to count women with restricted rights as incarcerated or not.

You have provided no evidence of thinking at all.

Do you expect to get some answer if you start such ad hominem attacks, or do you simply want to end the discussion?

Evidence or argument needed. My freedom of action largely depends on my government restricting those who would otherwise restrict me, as they have restricted others like me here in the past here and in other places now.

Ok, the part of the government law which restricts those who could, without this, restrict my freedom, is completely covered by the penal code. Which is usually, in almost all states, a quite thin book. Even many parts of the penal code are unnecessary for defending my freedom, in particular all drug laws, a large part of laws restriction sex (in particular pornography and prostitution). What remains is a very thin book, with laws against violence, robbery, theft, fraud, and various types of very dangerous behaviour. And a few common law principles, like that for harm caused by dangerous behaviour one has to pay compensation.

Then, simply take a look at the government regulations. These are not single books, these are big bookshelfs full of regulations. Nothing of this, except the mentioned part of the penal code, is necessary to defend my freedoms.

 

[Schmelzer]

I do not expect any positive reactions [from Schmelzer]. To defend a right to [not be] discriminate[d against] is politically incorrect [amongst fundamentalist and other wingnut groups], thus, heavy emotional reactions have to be expected. On the other hand, I do not expect any reasonable counterarguments [from the wingnuts].

Nice illustration of my point that I have to expect emotional reactions (in form of unjustified insults like "fundamentalist" or "wingnot") but not containing any argument.

 

[paddoboy]

Then, simply take a look at the government regulations. These are not single books, these are big bookshelfs full of regulations. Nothing of this, except the mentioned part of the penal code, is necessary to defend my freedoms.

Government regulations and laws are there to protect society in general and the majority from minority. And as such they even most certainly protect you, everyday.

 

[paddoboy]

Nice illustration of my point that I have to expect emotional reactions (in form of unjustified insults like "fundamentalist" or "wingnot") but not containing any argument.

If I go into a church blaspheming the name of God, I expect a hostile reaction.
If you come to a forum discussing politics, with extreme political views, particularly with regards to discrimination, you can expect a hostile reaction. Or is that what you are after?

 

[Schmelzer]

Government regulations and laws are there to protect society in general and the majority from minority. And as such they even most certainly protect you, everyday.

LOL, you obviously believe every nonsense if it comes from the government.

In reality, all these regulations are there to protect the established big firms from competition.

 

[Schmelzer]

If I go into a church blaspheming the name of God, I expect a hostile reaction.
If you come to a forum discussing politics, with extreme political views, particularly with regards to discrimination, you can expect a hostile reaction. Or is that what you are after?

Nice comparison. You seem to look at this forum as a church of the states authority - at least you behave so.

I don't care about emotional reactions, because I have learned how to handle them, thus, consider them as unavoidable, nasty, but essentially irrelevant, some sort of noise.

 

[paddoboy]

Nice comparison. You seem to look at this forum as a church of the states authority - at least you behave so.

No, it's called an analogy.

I don't care about emotional reactions, because I have learned how to handle them, thus, consider them as unavoidable, nasty, but essentially irrelevant, some sort of noise.

That seems to be the way of quite a few extremists on this forum.
Not sure what you mean by "handle them" as I have yet to see you convince anyone of the validity of your views, both politically and scientifically.

 

[paddoboy]

LOL, you obviously believe every nonsense if it comes from the government.

I certainly do view most government conspiracies as you push as nonsense.

In reality, all these regulations are there to protect the established big firms from competition.

No, as I have already told you, they are there to protect society in general, including you.

 

[Schmelzer]

Not sure what you mean by "handle them" as I have yet to see you convince anyone of the validity of your views, both politically and scientifically.

"Handle them" means to achieve that they or disappear or start to use arguments instead of personal attacks.

And, of course, one will almost certainly never see in a forum that A has convinced B of something. This happens, but usually remains hidden, at least to inexperienced users.

 

[Schmelzer]

I certainly do view most government conspiracies as you push as nonsense.

Is it really that difficult to learn to distinguish conspiracy theories from economic considerations? Or do you like the "conspiracy" accusation that much that you don't care about the question if its application is justified?

No, as I have already told you, they are there to protect society in general, including you.

As usual, a simple repetition of your claim, without any argument.

I provide an argument: Most governement regulation forbids something. There would be a simple possibility to protect the customers, but preserving their freedom of choice: quality labels supported or managed by the state. This would leave us the freedom to buy those products, which do not meet the quality criteria - usually they would have to be sold much cheaper, given that the missing quality label would tell everybody that they are low quality. But this solution is completely untypical for state regulations. They forbid. Why? This is what is in the interest of those who already produce according to the required quality standards - because it is their lobby which writes the laws, they will not write laws which force them to do something nontrivial. Thus, to forbid the low standard things hits the possible competitors much more. It hurts also us - we have to buy the expensive high quality things, even if we would not care about the quality.

 

[paddoboy]

Is it really that difficult to learn to distinguish conspiracy theories from economic considerations? Or do you like the "conspiracy" accusation that much that you don't care about the question if its application is justified?

Is it really that difficult for you to learn that what you are preaching is in the main total extreme bullshit and as such can certainly be labeled conspiracy, with an agenda behind them.

As usual, a simple repetition of your claim, without any argument.

No more repetitious than your own claims of extremism built on unsupported conspiracies.

I provide an argument: Most governement regulation forbids something.

Of course they do! For the good of society as a whole, which presumably you are still a part of.

The rest of your rant post is just that...a rant.

 

[Daecon]

Acceptable practices are practices which do not violate the Golden Rule, and, in particular, the refusal to sign contracts with members of the group which this bigoted people hate.

How does bigoted hatred not violate the Golden Rule?

 

[Schmelzer]

Is it really that difficult for you to learn that what you are preaching is in the main total extreme bullshit and as such can certainly be labeled conspiracy, with an agenda behind them.

At least you start to acknowledge that you use "conspiracy" not as a description of a certain type of theories, which claim that some group of people conspires to reach some aims, but simply as an insult. And, it seems, the "agenda behind" also has no content, but serves only as an insult.

Of course they do! For the good of society as a whole, which presumably you are still a part of.
The rest of your rant post is just that...a rant.

And, again, your "argument" consist simply of repeating your own claim - without any modification. The only "counterargument" is calling my argument "a rant". As if giving names would be an argument.

A nice illustration of the general rule that someone uses personal attacks, his arguments have no weight, and he knows this.

 

[Schmelzer]

How does bigoted hatred not violate the Golden Rule?

You can hate other people, but accept that these people also hate you.

 

[Daecon]

Oh, I get it. Like how you hate sane people.