Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

[Schmelzer]

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

First, if I have a negative relation to some people, to describe this relation with the word "hate" is not felicitous, "despise" seem much more appropriate.

Second, it seems that you have no idea which people I despise. (Or, alternatively, you use the authoritarian meaning of the word "sane", which describes those who follow, without any qualms, shame or guilt, the authorities.)

 

[paddoboy]

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 you conspire.......You twist and interpret all modes of governmnts and laws as evil. They are facts.

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.

Just as yours is. And of course it was a rant! So much twisted conspired nonsense generally speaking.

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

Pot, kettle, black!

 

[pjdude1219]

First, if I have a negative relation to some people, to describe this relation with the word "hate" is not felicitous, "despise" seem much more appropriate.

Second, it seems that you have no idea which people I despise. (Or, alternatively, you use the authoritarian meaning of the word "sane", which describes those who follow, without any qualms, shame or guilt, the authorities.)

i see your doing the time honored libertarian tactic of redefining words to suit your own nefarious purposes. your just another elitist anti freedom hack like most libertarians.

 

[iceaura]

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.

Yet another description of the missing examples.

I think the problem is that you can't come up with any, for the same reason I can't. They don't exist, in real life. Every time you consider a bigoted practice against Jews such as we are considering here - not a personal opinion or dislike of Jews, or an expression of such opinions and dislikes, but an overt and organized and consistent practice tolerated by the public or a given community, you realize that it involves what you have categorized as harmful violence and aggression such as you agree that government should prevent.

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.

Yemen? Egypt? Iran? I just picked the world center of Islam and oil, the two dominant features of Middle Eastern morality, politics, and economics. Then I reminded you that these rights and freedoms you espouse are by presumption to be enjoyed by women as well as men. You preferred the Middle East to the US, you said. What were you talking about?

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

It wasn't an ad hominem argument, it was an observation - you didn't make an argument, express a thought, or answer the question. You asserted the existence of "different" thinking, but presented none of it. If you find that insulting (which is what you meant, not "ad hominem"), why?

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.

So the poor, the uneducated, the marketing deceived, and their children etc, are in your view legitimate prey for the sellers of harmful products.

And we have the State making "quality" judgments and mandating labels accordingly, with your support.

And the situation in which the extra money to be made by lowering the "quality" is so great that all manufacturers are forced to either make the product that way or raise their prices to boutique product levels; that strikes you as no problem. As with gloves at Walmart, only not just shoddy and ill-fitting crap driving out midlevel midprice goods, but stuff that harms people - including those not buying the product?

Anarchy works nicely everywhere where the reputational enforcement of contracts works

So in a community of 150 people or less - Dunbar's Number - we don't need a formal government. That seems reasonable to me.

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

That does not cover the matter of bigoted practices, however, which is the relevant area in which the State becomes involved. The people redlined by the banks for being Black, or denied admission to the YMCA for being Jewish, are in no such state of equivalence.

 

[Schmelzer]

I think the problem is that you can't come up with any, for the same reason I can't. They don't exist, in real life. Every time you consider a bigoted practice against Jews such as we are considering here - not a personal opinion or dislike of Jews, or an expression of such opinions and dislikes, but an overt and organized and consistent practice tolerated by the public or a given community, you realize that it involves what you have categorized as harmful violence and aggression such as you agree that government should prevent.

Of course, this guess is nonsense, but it contains an interesting point: Let's assume for the sake of the argument you are right. Thus, what I have named a human right - the right to discriminate - is, if used in reality, always connected with violence.

What would be, in this case, the point of separately eliminating this basic human right? There are already laws agains violence, apply them, no problem to solve.

Yemen? Egypt? Iran?

As well as I don't want to present particular examples of a behaviour I have quite well defined in general terms (the right to discriminate) I do not plan to discuss here which states of the world I consider as less evil than others. My basic position I have described - all states are criminal organizations with mafia power over their territory. I have no interest in a discussion which particular mafia gang is less harmful than others from point of view of my personal interests. A discussion of this type simply would force me to defend one state or another - as less harmful than the US, but, whatever, it would be a defense of a state, thus, of a criminal gang.

The evaluation which of these gangs is less harmful for the own interests is something everybody has to decide for himself, based on his own, very particular interests, and if you, for example, are a billionaire, the US could be a quite reasonable choice.

It wasn't an ad hominem argument, it was an observation - you didn't make an argument, express a thought, or answer the question. You asserted the existence of "different" thinking, but presented none of it. If you find that insulting (which is what you meant, not "ad hominem"), why?

Sorry, if you are unable to understand yourself why I have considered this as an ad hominem attack, I would think you have a problem which I cannot help you to solve even with recommendations.

So the poor, the uneducated, the marketing deceived, and their children etc, are in your view legitimate prey for the sellers of harmful products.

No, because only 1% of the things which are forbidden are really harmful. And for selling really harmful things there would be, without any regulation, the sufficiently clear common law rule that for harm you create you have to compensate.

And the situation in which the extra money to be made by lowering the "quality" is so great that all manufacturers are forced to either make the product that way or raise their prices to boutique product levels; that strikes you as no problem.

It is no problem. Given that the people prefer to buy the cheap product means that the quality of the cheap product is not that bad.

As with gloves at Walmart, only not just shoddy and ill-fitting crap driving out midlevel midprice goods, but stuff that harms people - including those not buying the product?

Given the possibilities of todays degenerated US law system to get compensation even for imagined harm I probably would also feel harmed even not bying that product. ;-) No, just a joke. But, sorry, I do not take such things seriously ...

The people redlined by the banks for being Black, or denied admission to the YMCA for being Jewish, are in no such state of equivalence.

I see no problem with banks redlining blacks. If many banks would do this, this would be a chance for black businessmen to create an own bank. If YMCA does not accept jews, I bet this is not even a chance for a jewish business, because jews would anyway find a place.

 

[iceaura]

Let's assume for the sake of the argument you are right. Thus, what I have named a human right - the right to discriminate - is, if used in reality, always connected with violence.

What would be, in this case, the point of separately eliminating this basic human right? There are already laws agains violence, apply them, no problem to solve.

There are no laws against "vi0lence" in general, especially in the broad sense you employ. Only certain kinds of violence are forbidden by law.

You could save a lot of typing by coming up with a couple of examples. Have you figured out why that isn't an option for you?

Sorry, if you are unable to understand yourself why I have considered this as an ad hominem attack, - -

But I do understand that. It's because you don't know what an ad hominem argument is. You're ignorant.

And for selling really harmful things there would be, without any regulation, the sufficiently clear common law rule - - -

This is getting comical. We're going to take our "common law rule" into Walmart headquarters and wave it at the company lawyers, and they are going write big checks to thousands of people, and deliver them by flying pig.

Given that the people prefer to buy the cheap product means that the quality of the cheap product is not that bad

In the first place: It would mean that only if they were making a choice between reasonable alternatives - if their actual preferences were available. They are not. In the second: you are assuming the consequent. Earlier, your direction of argument was that involving a market guaranteed that people's preferences would be catered to; now you argue that people having made a market choice have been catered to.

But, sorry, I do not take such things seriously ...

We noticed. None of you self-styled "libertarians" take such things seriously. You live in some kind of a cartoon, where half of real life is omitted like the little finger on a cartoon had -because it's hard to draw or something.

Like this:

I see no problem with banks redlining blacks. If many banks would do this, this would be a chance for black businessmen to create an own bank.

What you just did, there, was post an example exactly as requested above - a bigoted practice that you think does only the acceptable harm that all civilized people easily live with. All you had to do was substitute "Jew" for "black".

Reductio ad absurdum, it's called.

 

[Schmelzer]

There are no laws against "vi0lence" in general, especially in the broad sense you employ. Only certain kinds of violence are forbidden by law.

I agree. And this is quite ok - because self-defense can be violent but should not be forbidden.

And if someone "discriminates" you, say, by refusing to have sex with you, but - given that you try to force him "not to discriminate" you, applies violent forms of self-defense, I would find this self-defense acceptable too.

You could save a lot of typing by coming up with a couple of examples. Have you figured out why that isn't an option for you?

It is an option for me. And there are already enough examples. Above, I have given even one where discrimination is even combined with violence and I accept this. Figure out why you insist on even more examples, given that there are already a lot of them.

In the first place: It would mean that only if they were making a choice between reasonable alternatives - if their actual preferences were available. They are not.

Really funny. Of course, the expensive high quality things are avaiable too - which are the only legal ones with regulation. There is some market segment for them, thus, they will remain on the market even without regulation. So, if you say that there would be, without regulation, no reasonable alternatives to buying the cheap low quality, that means the regulation forbids the only reasonable choice.

Ok, there are really poop people who cannot afford the expensive high quality things. In this case, regulation simply removes their possibility to buy this type of things completely. This is the "social" element of the regulation: For the rich, it is not a problem if low quality for the poor will be forbidden, it makes shopping easier - they don't have to look for quality labels. The poor can no longer buy these things at all? The 1% couldn't care less. But in the propaganda (for the stupid) this is sold as "caring for the poor" and "protecting" them from poor quality products.

Similar types of "caring" about the "poor" are propaganda campaigns against products from poor countries like Bangladesh or child labor. The result of such campaigns is that these poor/children loose their jobs and become much poorer. Or the street children have to switch to criminality or prostitution to survive. The winner are the rich workers from rich countries.

The question for me is if those who support such campaigns are really too stupid to understand simple economy or really such liars.

In the second: you are assuming the consequent. Earlier, your direction of argument was that involving a market guaranteed that people's preferences would be catered to; now you argue that people having made a market choice have been catered to.

????????????? I don't understand your point, sorry.

What you just did, there, was post an example exactly as requested above - a bigoted practice that you think does only the acceptable harm that all civilized people easily live with. All you had to do was substitute "Jew" for "black".

So then what is your problem? As I said above, there are enough examples.

 

[Tiassa]

You live in some kind of a cartoon, where half of real life is omitted like the little finger on a cartoon had -because it's hard to draw or something.

(chortle!)

Well stated.

Honestly, I've just been ducking this one because, well, you know how it goes. Every once in a while you find yourself near to disbelief: Really? Okay, so we're going to try to redefine society because human rights for gays is just a bridge too far?

Seriously, I can't wait for this one to tackle women's rights. Or maybe he'll just tackle women.

Oh, right. He's still trying to dig out of the rapehole.

Goddess grant, there's #MyNextBandName: Rapehole.

Then again, that's sort of the point, isn't it? This is the new trolling. It's like those spambots we get, generating strings of words that don't really make any sense. Except it's not exactly lorem ipsum, is it?

With some issues, what I find striking is the ignorance, and thus a certain degree of stupidity about significant advocacy sectors.

With other, though, what strikes me is the effort. While you're elbow-deep in the detail I admit I'm simply amazed at how important this is. We'll rebuild the world in order to stop the Gay? In the end I should be honored. The old back and forth about sexual identity has come full circle and then some. When gays responded to discrimination by celebrating their gayness, the prudes complained about celebrating sinful sex. Now we're down to rape, state monopoly on violence, and rebuilding society to a new standard in order to make gayhating cool again. You know, so prudes can be comfortable while worrying themselves about what other people might be doing in bed.

That's a whole lot of effort.

Maybe our neighbor would be better off just coming out.

 

[Schmelzer]

Really? Okay, so we're going to try to redefine society because human rights for gays is just a bridge too far?

Which gays? LOL, it seems you really think that I care about gays.

Seriously, I can't wait for this one to tackle women's rights. Or maybe he'll just tackle women.

Good idea. Not only should women have a right to organize clubs or meeting rooms closed for men, no, even subhumans like men should have the right to discriminate women by organizing pubs closed for women.

The old back and forth about sexual identity has come full circle and then some. When gays responded to discrimination by celebrating their gayness, the prudes complained about celebrating sinful sex. Now we're down to rape, state monopoly on violence, and rebuilding society to a new standard in order to make gayhating cool again.

LOL, you made my day.

 

[iceaura]

There are no laws against "vi0lence" in general, especially in the broad sense you employ. Only certain kinds of violence are forbidden by law.
I agree

So when your entire thesis falls apart because it depends on laws that do not exist under its requirements, you agree ?

Really funny. Of course, the expensive high quality things are avaiable too - which are the only legal ones with regulation.

Uh, hello? In the example the midprice midquality glove is what disappeared, and without any change in regulation - as is common in the modern Walmart economy.

Remember, we are talking about real life here - stuff that actually happens. The consumer preferred and affordable choices disappear, and a diseconomy of scale impoverishes the community bit by bit. Baby food with hypothetical nicotine or trans fats and sugar in it, gloves that don't fit or last, snow shovels with short plastic handles and/or blades that kink under heavy load (all of them, every single on on the shelves), and Sam Walton's children - whose contribution to the productivity of the relevant community has been if anything negative - among the richest people on the planet.

You can see something of the kind in housing, candy and cereal, public transportation, - food, clothing, and shelter, basically. The stuff poor people have to buy.

Thank heaven we got public sanitation installed and socially customary before free market asshattery got hold of sewage disposal.

I don't understand your point, sorry.

You can't justify preferring ungoverned markets by pointing to their better outcomes, and justify labeling the outcomes as better by pointing to the preferred superiority of the market mechanism that produced them. In one direction - either one - you're assuming the consequent. In both directions you are arguing in a circle.

Similar types of "caring" about the "poor" are propaganda campaigns against products from poor countries like Bangladesh or child labor. The result of such campaigns is that these poor/children loose their jobs and become much poorer.

Child labor economic organization, like many other forms of enslavement (piracy, plantation labor purchase), forms what economists call a stable equilibrium - its internal structure is homeostatic, as small deviations (one family refusing to send their children to work, one employer hiring only adults) are punished with lower returns in a survival situation. The fact that unregulated markets will often (some say, inevitably) fall into such misery and remain stuck there until natural disaster or war or something moves them far enough to find a different one, is a major factor in setting up one's regulation of them.

So then what is your problem? As I said above, there are enough examples.

I no longer have a problem - you have explicitly illustrated the kinds of discrimination you regard as harmless, and we all know for sure - after hundreds of years of examples of what you have now explicitly illustrated - what your happy talk about "civilized" and "acceptable" harm describes: exactly what Lester Maddox was talking about by "our way of life", standing on the schoolhouse steps with an axe handle in his hand, defending the acceptable and civilized racial discrimination of his people and their freedoms of contract against government intervention.

 

[Photizo]

I no longer have a problem

 

[Schmelzer]

So when your entire thesis falls apart because it depends on laws that do not exist under its requirements, you agree ?

Libertarianism has, of course, not laws in the formal sense, but moral principles. These moral principles forbid aggression, but not self-defense. And, of course, if you would know libertarian theory, you would know that there are a lot of sets of rules which appear in free societies. Starting, of course, with the rule that one has to fulfill contracts.

Uh, hello? In the example the midprice midquality glove is what disappeared, and without any change in regulation - as is common in the modern Walmart economy.

So what - who has told you that some midprice midquality has to be on the market, if nobody wants to buy it?

Remember, we are talking about real life here - stuff that actually happens. The consumer preferred and affordable choices disappear, and a diseconomy of scale impoverishes the community bit by bit.

Yes, shit happens, economy changes, and not all changes of the economy will be positive. If you would like to know, I would guess that in future there will be a lot of negative things in american economy.

and Sam Walton's children - whose contribution to the productivity of the relevant community has been if anything negative - among the richest people on the planet.

Ah, this is what disturbs you.

You can see something of the kind in housing, candy and cereal, public transportation, - food, clothing, and shelter, basically. The stuff poor people have to buy.
You can't justify preferring ungoverned markets by pointing to their better outcomes, and justify labeling the outcomes as better by pointing to the preferred superiority of the market mechanism that produced them. In one direction - either one - you're assuming the consequent. In both directions you are arguing in a circle.

Sorry, I didn't know that I have yet to teach you economy 101. How much you pay for it?

Child labor economic organization, like many other forms of enslavement (piracy, plantation labor purchase), forms what economists call a stable equilibrium - its internal structure is homeostatic, as small deviations (one family refusing to send their children to work, one employer hiring only adults) are punished with lower returns in a survival situation. The fact that unregulated markets will often (some say, inevitably) fall into such misery and remain stuck there until natural disaster or war or something moves them far enough to find a different one, is a major factor in setting up one's regulation of them.

I disagree. Child labor will be used in survival situations, if they end, child labor usually ends too. The survival situation is usually or a natural disaster or a consequence of what states have done, like wars. The economies of poor states are far away from being unregulated, there is usually a lot of bureaucracy, which, moreover, harms the population by extracting bribes. What is a bribe? It is the sum you have to pay to prevent the application of the regulations against you.

I no longer have a problem - you have explicitly illustrated the kinds of discrimination you regard as harmless, and we all know for sure - after hundreds of years of examples of what you have now explicitly illustrated - what your happy talk about "civilized" and "acceptable" harm describes:

Just to clarify this: What I name civilized is not a particular behavior - there will always be a lot of uncivilized, stupid discrimination - but the acceptance of basic freedoms by the society. Freedom is always the freedom of those who think otherwise. So, freedom will always be misused. Civilized societies find methods to live with the possibility of misuse of freedoms, mainly because they recognize that to restrict freedom is more harmful for society as a whole than to live with a few misuses. And because they have other methods to minimize such misuses, like the very powerful weapon of public opinion.

 

[Daecon]

Which gays? LOL, it seems you really think that I care about gays.

Who DO you care about?

 

[iceaura]

Libertarianism has, of course, not laws in the formal sense, but moral principles.

So your invocation of laws to prevent bad things from happening in your libertarian setup can be set aside, and those bad things are in fact the obvious consequences of such incompetent economic policies.

So what - who has told you that some midprice midquality has to be on the market, if nobody wants to buy it?

Most people want to buy them. They are, if available, the best selling items.

and Sam Walton's children - whose contribution to the productivity of the relevant community has been if anything negative - among the richest people on the planet.
Ah, this is what disturbs you.

It doesn't disturb you? It destroys your claims of market self-regulation, reward for contribution, etc.

I disagree. Child labor will be used in survival situations, if they end, child labor usually ends too.

Child labor in a society can, and often does, create a stable equilibrium in which it remains necessary for family survival. In these cases, it perpetuates itself - that's what "stable equilibrium" means. The market forces that established it maintain it. It can only be escaped by coercive, non-market, non-capitalistic, free exchange preventing, governmental force. You can disagree with standard economic and game theory, along with the record of the past two centuries of industrialization and so forth, all you want - reality isn't going away because you disagree with it.

Just to clarify this: What I name civilized is not a particular behavior - there will always be a lot of uncivilized, stupid discrimination - but the acceptance of basic freedoms by the society.

We have your examples of what you mean by basic freedoms civilized society accepts. And they are exactly the same as those claimed by Lester Maddox, axe handle in hand, on the steps of the taxpayer's building in Georgia. That's your freedom of contract, self defense, and so forth, in real life.
http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/misc/maddox01.htm

 

[Schmelzer]

So your invocation of laws to prevent bad things from happening in your libertarian setup can be set aside, and those bad things are in fact the obvious consequences of such incompetent economic policies.

I need no "invocation of law". My point was that 99% of state laws are unnecessary and often harmful regulations in the interest of the Big Firms. The remaining part which I find acceptable would appear in a libertarian society too. They are a basic part of libertarian philosophy, named "non-aggression principle", and "Golden Rule", with tit for tat and the right of self-defense and defense of others as the way to enforce them.

Most people want to buy them. They are, if available, the best selling items.

Open a shop and sell them. In a free society this would be possible.

It doesn't disturb you? It destroys your claims of market self-regulation, reward for contribution, etc.

It doesn't, because all what happens today in the world happens in highly overregulated societies, where a lot of regulations have been introduced to prevent the market self-regulation. I don't remember to have made any claims about "reward for contribution".

Child labor in a society can, and often does, create a stable equilibrium in which it remains necessary for family survival. In these cases, it perpetuates itself - that's what "stable equilibrium" means. The market forces that established it maintain it. It can only be escaped by coercive, non-market, non-capitalistic, free exchange preventing, governmental force. You can disagree with standard economic and game theory, along with the record of the past two centuries of industrialization and so forth, all you want - reality isn't going away because you disagree with it.

It is stable and remains stable if the society artificially restricts the economic growth, so that those who have to fight for survival continue to have to fight for survival. In economically free societies, this does not happen. With economic growth, child labor decreases - the families do not need it anymore for survival, street kids find better alternatives to live. If this disagrees with what you name "standard economic and game theory", no problem, I have never had a problem to reject theories which I think are false only because some mainstream accepts them as standard. Even more, Keynesianism, which is at least an important part of the mainstream, I clearly reject.

We have your examples of what you mean by basic freedoms civilized society accepts. And they are exactly the same as those claimed by Lester Maddox, axe handle in hand, on the steps of the taxpayer's building in Georgia. That's your freedom of contract, self defense, and so forth, in real life.
http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/misc/maddox01.htm

Your point being? If, say, Hitler claims 2+2=4, I'm morally obliged to say 2+2=5 or what?

 

[Schmelzer]

Who DO you care about?

About the possibility of a free society, without the totalitarian riscs of modern democracies.

In such a society, discrimination is a powerful instrument to isolate totalitarian groups. They have the possibility to segregate and organize their own communes or whatever, to build their City of God, or Communism, or Racial or National Pure Society or whatever on their private property. Since I'm quite sure that all such totalitarian experiments, if tried out by small groups, will have unattractive results, they are not dangerous for the society as a whole. Instead, democracy leaves them only one possibility to do this: Get the majority and enforce this on everybody by law. And all one needs for this is a powerful enough media imperium.

 

[iceaura]

I need no "invocation of law".

You needed it to prevent the violence of anti-Jewish bigotry from doing harm unacceptable to civilized society. That 's why you invoked law, above, in response to my observation that you were permitting people to do violence to others from bigotry.

My point was that 99% of state laws are unnecessary and often harmful regulations in the interest of the Big Firms.

No, it wasn't. Your point was that we didn't need laws curbing discrimination against Jews, because the harmful and violent bigoted practices were already forbidden by "laws against violence". This is in post 305, above.

What would be, in this case, the point of separately eliminating this basic human right? There are already laws agains violence, apply them, no problem to solve.

My point was that such laws do not exist in your setup.

"Most people want to buy them. They are, if available, the best selling items."
Open a shop and sell them. In a free society this would be possible.

In theory. And it is theoretically possible, in this society - it's just not profitable enough to survive competition from Walmart. Bad product drives out good, just as bad money drives out good. It's one of the glitches of free market capitalism.

It is stable and remains stable if the society artificially restricts the economic growth, so that those who have to fight for survival continue to have to fight for survival.

No, it is stable without artificial restrictions on growth. It restricts growth itself, by consuming childhood on low productivity labor instead of investing it in learning and play. There are other examples of stable sub-optimal equilibria - plantation slavery, racial ghettoing, sex-role task assignment, various religious beliefs influencing practice, tribal identification, etc.

http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/misc/maddox01.htm
Your point being? If, say, Hitler claims 2+2=4, I'm morally obliged to say 2+2=5 or what?

No morality involved. If you claim 2+2=4 you would be obliged by reason to agree that your arithmetic is identical with Hitler's, is all. The observation was that your political ideology and recommended role of government in racial discrimination is identical with that of Lester Maddox. You are obliged by reason to agree.

Since I'm quite sure that all such totalitarian experiments, if tried out by small groups, will have unattractive results, they are not dangerous for the society as a whole

Your confidence in your assessments of reality is badly misplaced.

 

[Schmelzer]

You needed it to prevent the violence of anti-Jewish bigotry from doing harm unacceptable to civilized society. That 's why you invoked law, above, in response to my observation that you were permitting people to do violence to others from bigotry.

In a libertarian society, there would be other means to prevent violence. I have named them - Golden Rule and Non-Aggression-Principle, which are central moral restrictions, and tit for tat as a legitimate restriction for self-defense and defense of others.

No, it wasn't. Your point was that we didn't need laws curbing discrimination against Jews, because the harmful and violent bigoted practices were already forbidden by "laws against violence". This is in post 305, above.

So, this makes clear that you don't need additional laws today. That you don't need these additional laws in a libertarian society, which does not have laws enforced by a state at all, was not the point discussed.

In theory. And it is theoretically possible, in this society - it's just not profitable enough to survive competition from Walmart. Bad product drives out good, just as bad money drives out good. It's one of the glitches of free market capitalism.

Bad money drive out good, because nobody wants to hort them, so they are given away as fast as possible, thus, circulate. For bad products to drive out good, there is no such analogical mechanism. Cheap products drive out expensive ones - even if the expensive ones have better quality - but only to a certain degree.

Of course, if the middle class becomes poor, and the segregation between the poor and the rich decreases, this will also lead to a diminishing number of things which are ideal for the middle class - moderately expensive with moderate quality.

No, it is stable without artificial restrictions on growth. It restricts growth itself, by consuming childhood on low productivity labor instead of investing it in learning and play. There are other examples of stable sub-optimal equilibria - plantation slavery, racial ghettoing, sex-role task assignment, various religious beliefs influencing practice, tribal identification, etc.

Ok, you believe these are stable, I don't.

No morality involved. If you claim 2+2=4 you would be obliged by reason to agree that your arithmetic is identical with Hitler's, is all.

Its not all - because, if this would be all, nobody would have introduced into the discussion that Hitler has claimed 2+2=4. If such things are introduced into the discussion, it is because one wants to justify claims like "you propose the same things as Hitler". Something quite different from "you propose 2+2=4".

I don't know this Lester Maddox, have never read a book of him (if he has written some), so I cannot make any claims about the question if his views are identical with my, and, knowing this defamation technique, I would suspect they are quite different.

 

[wellwisher]

If any group separates themselves from others, this will set up walls and will lead to misunderstanding. Separation results in some people being accepted and others being excluded. Misunderstanding, can then create fear of the unknown, leading to defensiveness and/or defensive aggression; fight or flight due to projections.

The defensive aggression, causes the group that separated, to set up stronger walls, which only serves to perpetuate the misunderstanding. If you add laws to protect those who separate, this does not change the misunderstanding, but rather it can compound it. Higher walls hides even more. Legal weapons of defense, can also be used to mount an offense. Laws that were designed to protect homosexuals from verbal assault, can be used by bullies to silence people, who disagree using sound arguments and science. If the government gives legal weapons, their dual purpose can be used for a preemptive attack to appease their own insecurity; other side of their own wall.

The Jewish religion, is clannish by bible traditions, since one has to be connected by maternal blood or by conversion. By default, even well meaning people, will always be on the outside of the clan, due to the rules. Some people can understand this, but others can't understand why, being well intentioned, they are still excluded beyond the level of an acquaintance. Hitler could capitalize on the misunderstanding, created by clan separation.

The homosexuals do the same thing, by waving a physical wall of behavior, that by default, excludes the heterosexual from their clan, if they don't convert. It is would be better to avoid waving this flag of differences, that denotes the clan wall. Law does not change this misunderstanding, but rather causes it to go underground. In Indiana, the legal weapons given for homosexual defense were used to mount an offensive. They wanted freedom of speech and expression, but others beyond their clan are not free to speak or act their conscience. This created a backlash, as the underground rose up in defense, looking for its own defensive weapons, which could be used to mount a counter offense. Nobody should have any of these legal clan weapons.

In these discussion forums, often two teams form, for any topic, with the status quo team more exclusionary. People without even knowing each other, react to projections of each other, as the walls form along various lines. It is the same type of effect. If people get too thinned skinned, the walls become fortified, with the louder side given defensive weapons, that soon become used for offense; way to work the system in their favor of the clan. This creates a backlash,which the democratic party knows and uses to secure a voting block of bigots bought with giveaways.

 

[iceaura]

Bad money drive out good, because nobody wants to hort them, so they are given away as fast as possible, thus, circulate. For bad products to drive out good, there is no such analogical mechanism.

Yes, there is. It's a de facto monopoly or cartel (big enough to have significant cost control of the supply chain) maximizing return on investment.

The glove makers have to supply Walmart and a couple of others, or go boutique. Walmart et al make a higher return on investment by vending cheaper and shoddier goods than most people want.

Cheap products drive out expensive ones - even if the expensive ones have better quality - but only to a certain degree.

The expensive ones do not suffer - they were hand made etc in the first place, small market from the beginning. The excluded middle is a matter of that certain degree.

Its not all - because, if this would be all, nobody would have introduced into the discussion that Hitler has claimed 2+2=4. If such things are introduced into the discussion, it is because one wants to justify claims like "you propose the same things as Hitler". Something quite different from "you propose 2+2=4".

Whatever your motives were in introducing the entire field of reference to Hitler, my response was precise.

I don't know this Lester Maddox, -

That's not surprising. No one familiar with Maddox and his ilk would so easily yak about the self defense of a community of racial bigots enjoying freedom of contract as an unlimited right.

Ok, you believe these are stable, I don't.

The stability of these equilibria (child labor, plantation slavery, plutocracy of heirs, etc) is not a belief, it's a mathematical certainty given the hypotheses (which are reasonable, and the same ones you use in free market analysis generally) , and an observed reality of economies around the planet and throughout history.

Where we get into the realm of "belief", faith based economics and political ideology, is in this kind of juvenilia:

In a libertarian society, there would be other means to prevent violence. I have named them - Golden Rule and Non-Aggression-Principle, which are central moral restrictions, and tit for tat as a legitimate restriction for self-defense and defense of others.

As far as one can tell, these "rules" or "moral restrictions" are going to be known and understood and enforced consistently, without explicit codification or established agents of coercion, by mass hypnosis. Or possibly by suitable wand employment by the Defense Against the Dark Arts professor at Hogworts. Or something.