Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Did CP raise a good point?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    I regard these two conditions as analogous for the purpose of anti-discrimination legislation. I agree the analogy is not exact, but where it differs I think is not relevant to the arguments being made.
    The two have nothing in common. Back in the 30's, they locked people away who were caught in homosexual relationships. Are they doing that today?

    No. Nobody should be forced to attend. As we have been saying for several pages now, the law can force them to do SOMETHING, but there is always a choice. They can attend, or they can pay a fine or suffer other legal ramifications.
    So there it is, "Do it or else." Remember though, you did have a choice to either attend or else pay a fine, have your business closed, be forced into poverty, etc. Yep, great choices there.

    OK, we have different attitudes here.
    Yeah and mine is I'd rather work with people that I actually want to work with. I know, weird idea, isn't it?

    If we have a clear case of illegal discrimination, that's what we have.
    No it isn't PM, she wanted a choice and you wanted to make it for her because YOU personally have no problem working with or doing things with people you have major problems with doesn't mean the rest of us are the same way.

    In this particular case, the photographer refused to do the wedding because she is personally opposed to the gay lifestyle. She SAID so.
    Sorry, but that doesn't make a person a 'bigot'. Do you even know what a bigot is or do you define it as somebody who disagrees with X view, idea, group, etc? If that's the case, everybody would be a 'bigot' to somebody.

    Not me personally. Anti-discrimination laws aren't arbitrary exercises in stifling rights or freedoms, they are means of protecting rights and freedoms from those who WOULD stifle them. On the whole, I think discouraging discrimination is a good idea.
    Yeah, they are arbitrary because they choose to give a group of people MORE rights then others should be given. Is it constitutional for a group of people to have MORE rights than the rest of us?

    They are your piles, not mine. I speak of not discriminating against people for one reason, and you keep complaining that people are not discriminating for some OTHER reason.
    Nope, they are your piles because I know how emotions work phank. Do you think I'm stupid and I don't know what the emotions the 1960's civil rights movement invokes in people? I do know and that is just what you're trying to do. You're trying to get emotional reactions out of people and I'm not going to let that happen. Sorry, but you're going to have to build your strawman out of something else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joel
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Back to the tradeoffs. Picture adjacent apartments with thin walls. How should one resident's right to loud music balance against his neighbor's right to peace and quiet? Anti-discrimination laws balance the protection of those discriminated against, with the right of the discriminators to discriminate against them. So you have to look at it from both sides. Protecting shop windows violate the rights of rock-throwers. Whose rights are more important?
    In the case of exchange, neither party has the right to have the other make the exchange. (An exchange without rights violations happens if and only if both parties consent.) Thus one party refraining from exchanging does not violate the other party's rights. On the other hand, using force against someone for refraining from exchanging (or to attempt to force the exchange) is a violation of rights. It is not the case they have conflicting rights. If party A doesn't want to exchange, party B has no rights to the exchange.

    When I argue that non-coercion trumps non-discrimination, I'm not balancing two rights. I'm not at all saying non-discrimination is a right. The strongest argument in my mind is that non-coercion in this case is because of rights, while non-discrimination is not.

    Wow, you are one weaselmeister! What if he changes his job description? what is a "job" anyway? Weasel, weasel, weasel. If you are willing to photograph a straight wedding and not willing to photograph a gay wedding, your job is photography. You didn't change what you do - you photograph weddings. If a gay person attempts to hire you and you suddenly discover you just changed professions, you might be in trouble. At best, you better not change professions right back when a straight customer walks up.
    I'm not saying "What is his job anyway?".
    The point is that a proprietor doesn't have a job-he-has-to-do at all. An employee does. You are trying to apply that concept to proprietors, but you are then only speaking in analogy or metaphor, not literally. Not in any contractually binding sense. I'm not carving out exceptions, I'm saying that your transferring of that concept isn't valid at all. In reality there are only ever a bunch of individual exchanges, and each exchange is a separate decision in which both parties must consent (for it to be just). That's the objective thing here.

    You are trying to claim that the proprietor has some implicit contractual obligation to sell to anyone who walks through the door, because it's "his job". That's never true. It's still his door and his property and each exchange is a separate decision in the moment. That is his property right, and that is his business, in every sense of the word.

    I think what you are trying to do is what you need to do to defend your position: you need to show that the proprietor has somehow contractually bound himself in the way you are describing. But I don't think we can assume that. Suppose a person sets himself to sell a bunch of flowers today (or any arbitrary choice of time period). That may be a personal goal he set for himself in the morning, but I don't see how it creates any contractual obligation on himself, let alone between himself and anyone else. If he has no contractual obligation with a person, he has no obligation to exchange, and thus refraining from exchanging is not violating the person's rights.

    Asking the white supremicists to pretty please be nice to negroes didn't work very well.
    That's not the only non-violent means, as I've pointed out. There are things like boycott, social ostracism, and public ridicule.
    But that's beside the particular point I was making. Freedom of speech means nothing if we don't uphold it even for people with whom we disagree (like white supremicists saying white-supremicist things). It means we don't swing the axe. I'm arguing the same for freedom of association and property rights.

    I think the term "morality" has misleading connotations here. Yes, I think it's "good" to reduce social friction, so that people get along better. If you wish to call that a moral decision rather than a pragmatic decision, that's your view.
    I don't think they are separable. Human purposes and actions are not amoral. And the discussion of whether something ought to be a law involves an "ought", and thus necessarily is a moral question.

    (Also your claim of amoral decision is somewhat disturbing: that you would make a decision--involving initiating force and with a society-wide affect even--without regard to any possible immorality of your action. People wielding force legally, without consideration of morality, is frankly a terrifying thought. And has resulted in horrors before.)

    This has become very old by now. The 13th amendment prevents anyone from being faced with that particular choice.
    So then you do acknowledge that forcing that choice itself can be (and commonly is) referred to as "involuntary servitude" in the English language? (likewise referred to by other similar expressions like "forcing a person to work".)




    (Disclaimer to maintain clarity: I do not want to prejudicially discriminate. I condemn prejudicial discrimination. I'm arguing only that it doesn't justify the use of force. Not swinging the axe does not in any way imply approval of such discrimination. And neither does it preclude using other effective, nonviolent means to oppose said discrimination. We must defend rights even for people with whom we disagree.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

    The government has always been making unconstitutional laws. The Constitution has been used, more or less, as a guideline. If you think the government is doing something wrong, challenge it in court, let your representative know, vote, make campaign donations, volunteer for a campaign, or run for office.
    until they pass a law saying that it is illegal for you to challenge unconstitutional laws, then what?


    It's not arbitrary, it's based on practicalities. Are you just reading what you want to read?
    I am just saying that your idea of laws being legal if they are unconstitutional is wrong. The constitution is the basis of our country's laws and the rights of each citizen. If the government can just override it on a whim because it wants to, then the constitution is meaningless. Congress could pass a law saying the constitution is null and void and that we are now a dictatorship. Under your idea, that would be perfectly legal and we would have no recourse.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
    Is the draft also prohibited?
    No, congress has the power to raise armies. A constitutional amendment severely limiting when the government can or cannot draft wouldn't hurt though.

    We have international laws. Punishment outside of the law is vigilantism, which is a bad thing.
    It needn't be outside the law. I was thinking of retroactive applications of law.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    I think some words mean different things to us. I would agree that laws are "good" when the benefits exceed the costs. Now, we can go all Joel here and say that "good" is necessarily a moral judgment, and "benefits" are moral judgments, and "costs" are moral judgments, but to me, this gets absurd. Like saying blue is a moral color for the sky but not for the lawn. When everything is moral, nothing is moral.
    No because blue is not a value judgment based on good and bad. Morality is based on behaviors that are right or wrong. In the case of laws, they codify the values a society decided is good or bad.

    Websters defines morals as "concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior"

    Leave a comment:


  • Psychic Missile
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    Forced labor is prohibited by the 13th amendment.
    Is the draft also prohibited?

    Some dictators don't break any laws. Laws are the commands of the biggest kid on the block. Sometimes that kid gets deposed and is post-facto determined to have engaged in evil actions that deserve punishment even if they weren't illegal at the time.
    We have international laws. Punishment outside of the law is vigilantism, which is a bad thing.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    if the government can make any law that goes against the constitution and it is legal, then the constitution is worthless. What are you going to do when they take away YOUR constitutional rights by passing a law against it?
    The government has always been making unconstitutional laws. The Constitution has been used, more or less, as a guideline. If you think the government is doing something wrong, challenge it in court, let your representative know, vote, make campaign donations, volunteer for a campaign, or run for office.

    So basically it is just an arbitrary decision depending on who the government wants to favor and who it wants to punish. wow. welcome to the new Nazi Germany PM.
    It's not arbitrary, it's based on practicalities. Are you just reading what you want to read?

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    I am telling you what any first year law student learns in college.
    I think some words mean different things to us. I would agree that laws are "good" when the benefits exceed the costs. Now, we can go all Joel here and say that "good" is necessarily a moral judgment, and "benefits" are moral judgments, and "costs" are moral judgments, but to me, this gets absurd. Like saying blue is a moral color for the sky but not for the lawn. When everything is moral, nothing is moral.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    OK, that makes sense to me. I don't see it that way, I see it through a sort of game-theory filter, assessing optimal outcomes in terms of quantifiable social costs. You seem to have internalized those costs into a sort of moral framework I regard as extraneous. I see nothing but moral connotations to laws against, say, prostitution. I see no morality whatsoever in speed limits. Those are a straight tradeoff between time and risk.
    I am telling you what any first year law student learns in college.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Yes Phank I do believe that laws legislate morality. Morals are values and ethical behavior, and laws enforce behavior that it believes to be good and punishes those who go against those values. If you have a law against murder, it is because the state feels that killing another person is bad because human life has worth. Speeding laws are the same. The state is saying that keeping a human life safe is more important than how fast a car can go. Laws against stealing say that taking what doesn't belong to you is wrong. Zoning laws say things like you can't put a strip club near a public school because protecting children from such things is more important than the convenience of getting your jollies looking at naked women. Laws are all about legislating the morals and values of a society or government. That is what they do. They say "this is good and that is bad" based on moral and ethical values of right and wrong.

    If you would like to mention a law for an example that you think does not legislate moral values, please do so. I will be happy to point out the morality behind the purpose of that law.
    OK, that makes sense to me. I don't see it that way, I see it through a sort of game-theory filter, assessing optimal outcomes in terms of quantifiable social costs. You seem to have internalized those costs into a sort of moral framework I regard as extraneous. I see nothing but moral connotations to laws against, say, prostitution. I see no morality whatsoever in speed limits. Those are a straight tradeoff between time and risk.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by Joel View Post
    While Beagle's distinction does exist, I think you may be overstating the case here. Given the existence of that threat of force, if someone does attend because of that threat, then we can say they were forced to attend. If nobody should be forced to attend, then the threat should never be made.
    We're going in circles. You can choose to obey or break the law. If both choices entail penalties, you can select what you consider the lesser penalty.

    It would likewise be invalid to say that a slave-master cannot force anyone to do any work (because the victim always has the choice of submitting to the threat of being killed, for example). But if a slave-master cannot force anyone to work, then surely they can never be convicted of doing that (slavery) which they logically cannot do. What after all does the 13th Amendment prohibit? If laws, by definition never force anyone to do anything, then no possible law forces any involuntary servitude, in which case the 13th Amendment doesn't prohibit anything, which is absurd.
    This has become very old by now. The 13th amendment prevents anyone from being faced with that particular choice.

    Which is irrelevant to the debate of whether that legislation is good/just.
    Abstractly speaking, laws are always tradeoffs to some extent. While it's not completely a zero-sum game, nonetheless laws that help some hinder others. So you have to balance the benefit and the cost, to see which is more. If anti-discrimination laws represent a slight benefit to society as a whole, a useful immediate benefit to those formerly discriminated against, and a severe pain right in the Jesus for those who feel a compelling need to discriminate, then we have to weigh everything together.


    But I have given arguments that anti-discrimination laws do, in fact, violate rights. While on the other hand, using force against someone for refraining from exchanging with you is not a human right, but is a violation of the other person's rights. Thus you have it exactly backwards.
    Back to the tradeoffs. Picture adjacent apartments with thin walls. How should one resident's right to loud music balance against his neighbor's right to peace and quiet? Anti-discrimination laws balance the protection of those discriminated against, with the right of the discriminators to discriminate against them. So you have to look at it from both sides. Protecting shop windows violate the rights of rock-throwers. Whose rights are more important?

    So do I. I'm just saying that force is not among the acceptable means of doing so.
    Asking the white supremicists to pretty please be nice to negroes didn't work very well.

    Oh? But you do think force should be used against people who make decisions about exchanging that you think are immoral.
    I'm not making a moral decision, I'm making a decision based on what I see as overall society-wide benefit.

    The distinction you point out is what distinguishes those immoral acts (injustice) that justify the use of force in response, and those immoral acts (vices) that do not warrant the use of force.
    It's morality either way.
    I could claim that yonder stoplight is immoral, and so is that bush over there, and blue is an immoral color for the sky, and so on ad infinitum. So labeling EVERYTHING as moral might reflect your outlook, but that's not really relevant. If it's dangerous, if society as a whole won't tolerate it, it's made illegal. Whether or not SOME people wish to paint a legal decision with morality paint is their business, but not the business of the law.

    It necessarily involves the question of whether/when the use of force is acceptable or unacceptable.
    In most cases, it's a matter of whether certain actions should be encouraged or discouraged. The "force" involved can be subtle, like granting tax breaks, etc.

    Your attempt to sidestep morality involves moral assumptions such that social interaction (or certain forms of it) are good, and violence against it is bad and that certain protections of social interactions from said violence is good.
    I think the term "morality" has misleading connotations here. Yes, I think it's "good" to reduce social friction, so that people get along better. If you wish to call that a moral decision rather than a pragmatic decision, that's your view.

    Just as there is no metaphysical state of "for sale", there is also no metaphysical state of "his job".
    Now there is the case of someone hired (contracted) to do a job, but that's not really what we are talking about. We are talking about someone who happens to engage in exchanges. In the real world this is constantly in flux--he can change what he does at any time--with no fixed "job" for the person who works for themselves. It seems to be increasingly more likely that your position depends on faulty ideas of economics.
    Wow, you are one weaselmeister! What if he changes his job description? what is a "job" anyway? Weasel, weasel, weasel. If you are willing to photograph a straight wedding and not willing to photograph a gay wedding, your job is photography. You didn't change what you do - you photograph weddings. If a gay person attempts to hire you and you suddenly discover you just changed professions, you might be in trouble. At best, you better not change professions right back when a straight customer walks up.

    Just legislation is beneficial. Unjust legislation harmful. It seems imprudent to give any legislation the benefit of the doubt of being "generally beneficial." Or are you making an empirical claim that most of the legislation that man has actually created in human history has been beneficial, even though it could have been otherwise? Or are you just saying that there exists some (beneficial) laws that are necessary? I would agree with that last one.
    I think the intention of every law has been to benefit someone (often at the expense of someone else). Sometimes, the intention can't be achieved and the results on the ground vary from deleterious to catastrophic. Think prohibition. Think drug war. Great intentions, no reduction in drinking or drug use, terrible expense in many ways.

    As to whether all beneficial laws are necessary, I wouldn't say they are all equally necessary. And laws do require voluntary compliance on the part of almost everyone.

    Incidentally, with those laws in place it will be harder for the customer to know who is bigoted against them, because bigoted sellers will conceal it because of the law. I've seen some people argue against anti-discrimination laws on the grounds that they would rather legally permit the bigots to display/announce their bigotry so we know who they are so that they can be avoided, boycotted, publicly ridiculed, etc.
    The purpose of anti-discrimination laws isn't to convert bigots into tolerant or indifferent citizens. When most lunch counters integrated, they weren't instantly a dandy place for negroes to have lunch. They DID get served, but they got served last, the food was cold and ill-prepared, the waiters ignored them, etc. It's not all that big a mystery who is resenting the requirements and dragging their feet.
    Last edited by phank; 03-14-2014, 03:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Phank
    So you think the law exists to enforce moral behavior? Seriously?
    Yes Phank I do believe that laws legislate morality. Morals are values and ethical behavior, and laws enforce behavior that it believes to be good and punishes those who go against those values. If you have a law against murder, it is because the state feels that killing another person is bad because human life has worth. Speeding laws are the same. The state is saying that keeping a human life safe is more important than how fast a car can go. Laws against stealing say that taking what doesn't belong to you is wrong. Zoning laws say things like you can't put a strip club near a public school because protecting children from such things is more important than the convenience of getting your jollies looking at naked women. Laws are all about legislating the morals and values of a society or government. That is what they do. They say "this is good and that is bad" based on moral and ethical values of right and wrong.

    If you would like to mention a law for an example that you think does not legislate moral values, please do so. I will be happy to point out the morality behind the purpose of that law.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    but it doesn't. It only hinges on if the speech will cause immediate illegal crimes to take place. Like urging a crowd to burn down a school, or turn on all of the black people in the crowd. The KKK can actually speak and say they think all blacks should be hung or beaten or whatever and as long as that doesn't result in an immediate illegal action taking place, then it is OK. You can yell fire in a crowded theater that is not on fire and many people could get hurt, but as long as they didn't do anything illegal, then your speech is protected. That is what that article was saying. Intent to do harm is not the measuring stick. Imminent illegal action is. Not even a problem for delayed illegal action being incited.
    That sounds good to me. I'm aware of the "clear and present danger" argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    What does the incidence of such relationships have to do with anything? Homosexuality is a very small percentage of the population too. It just gets a lot of press.
    Why? Because the press is stupid? The point I was trying to make was that there were many many thousands of existing same-sex marriages-in-all-but-law. The press (reporting on court decisions mostly) is simply echoing that there is no reason not to grant these existing relationships legal recognition. It helps many and hurts nobody.

    And they would also apply to something like an incestuous marriage between a brother and sister.
    If you can find thousands and thousands of existing marriages-in-all-but-law between siblings, you might find one of them willing to sue for recognition, and see what happens.

    Yeah I guess we are not communicating, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Laws against murder, violence, stealing, are all laws legislating morality.
    They are ALSO laws legislating acceptable social behavior, morality or not. I don't want someone driving drunk because that's immoral, I don't want them driving drunk because that's unsafe and is a threat to me and other drivers.

    I work at a law firm. I deal with this "law" stuff all the time. My brother is in law enforcement. My cousin is a criminal attorney. I have studied the issues and laws involved, apparently you haven't.
    So you think the law exists to enforce moral behavior? Seriously?

    If I have no legal choice to refuse business no matter what, then that is "force" and it is not actually the law. You are just completely wrong on the topic.
    I agree that if I had actually said that, I would be wrong on the topic. But I did not. I said you COULD refuse business, even if the refusal is against the law, if you find the legal penalty is less costly to you than accepting the business.

    If in fact people were obligated to sell anything to anyone for any reason, then you would not even NEED protected classes of people would you?
    This is so close. If people were WILLING to sell what they advertise to all members of the public, there would be no need for protected classes. Protected classes are necessary because people ARE discriminatory, and the laws against it reflect the desire on the part of society to reduce the discrimination.

    The fact that there are protected classes that get special treatment means that there are unprotected classes of people that don't get that special treatment. I don't legally have to accept a strip club as a client if I don't want to. Strip clubs are not a protected class.
    Classes that are not discriminated against, do not need protection from what does not happen.

    That may be what you BELIEVE but that doesn't make it so. And the constitution doesn't care what Phank thinks.
    No, it's not about what I think, it's about what the national legal system has ruled. And they have ruled that religious expression does NOT extend to breaking civil law.

    Again, your opinion. I have already quoted the bible to you about what God says about homosexual behavior. It is a sin. As a Christian, I believe that. The constitution protects my beliefs.
    Nobody but you can change your beliefs. But if ACTING on those beiefs in some particular way breaks the law, then you pay the legal penalty.

    Why do they have to wait? If everyone except a few backwards Christians are OK with homosexual marriage and behavior, then they should have plenty of choices right now.
    I agree with you, and explained at some length. The current effort is to make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation illegal. My prediction is that once this happens, people will still patronize the businesses that cater to them best.

    so now its back to "sexual orientation" being the determining factor. Earlier you were arguing that the business owner had to sell to anyone for any reason. They were not allowed to refuse. You and Joel went through that quite a bit. Yet when I call you on this and ask for some actual law instead of your bare assertion, you shifted those goal posts pretty quickly. zoom.
    I don't think I ever said that. Not to Joel or anyone else. But you are determined to misinterpret what I write, so it takes lots of repetition in slightly different words before (and if) I get the point across. The goal here is to discourage discrimination, where such discrimination is irrelevant to the transaction or contract. This leaves an enormous number of perfectly valid reasons not to sell to people. Like not selling that product or service. Like being sold out. Like being booked up. Like being closed for the day. Sheesh, why is that so hard to understand?

    and again the constitution nor the civil rights act protects "sexual orientation" either. More bare assertion from you.
    Groan. Please re-read what you are responding to. I said, IF this is the law, THEN you must follow it. Currently, it's not the law. That's why I said IF. Did you see the word IF? I predict it will become the law, but I could be wrong.

    The law is usually pretty black and white. That's why a simple law can take up pages and pages of legal documents, to solidify what the law really means. But in this case, you argue one way, then another. First a business has to sell to anyone for any reason, then you argue they don't. It can't be both ways.
    And I never said otherwise. Indeed, arguing that everyone must sell everything to everyone without any exception would be idiotic. I could ask my neighbor to sell me the moon! I never wrote, and would never make, such a stupid claim. I've been defending the idea that discriminating against people for reasons irrelevant to the immediate transaction, is a Bad Thing. I fully understand that you are defending such discrimination, WHEN it is applied to categories of morality to which you object.

    I think I am about done here. We just keep arguing the same things over and over and you keep tossing out opinion as fact, and then changing your mind and arguing the opposite for a while, then back to the original position. It is like trying to nail smoke to the wall.

    I have enjoyed our conversation however. Thanks.
    I feel like I've been chasing smoke here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Sounds like a good correction to me. The issue shouldn't be free speech, but should rather hinge on something like intent to do harm.
    but it doesn't. It only hinges on if the speech will cause immediate illegal crimes to take place. Like urging a crowd to burn down a school, or turn on all of the black people in the crowd. The KKK can actually speak and say they think all blacks should be hung or beaten or whatever and as long as that doesn't result in an immediate illegal action taking place, then it is OK. You can yell fire in a crowded theater that is not on fire and many people could get hurt, but as long as they didn't do anything illegal, then your speech is protected. That is what that article was saying. Intent to do harm is not the measuring stick. Imminent illegal action is. Not even a problem for delayed illegal action being incited.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joel
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    No. Nobody should be forced to attend. As we have been saying for several pages now, the law can force them to do SOMETHING, but there is always a choice. They can attend, or they can pay a fine or suffer other legal ramifications.
    While Beagle's distinction does exist, I think you may be overstating the case here. Given the existence of that threat of force, if someone does attend because of that threat, then we can say they were forced to attend. If nobody should be forced to attend, then the threat should never be made.

    It would likewise be invalid to say that a slave-master cannot force anyone to do any work (because the victim always has the choice of submitting to the threat of being killed, for example). But if a slave-master cannot force anyone to work, then surely they can never be convicted of doing that (slavery) which they logically cannot do. What after all does the 13th Amendment prohibit? If laws, by definition never force anyone to do anything, then no possible law forces any involuntary servitude, in which case the 13th Amendment doesn't prohibit anything, which is absurd.

    Originally posted by phank View Post
    If we have a clear case of illegal discrimination, that's what we have.
    Which is irrelevant to the debate of whether that legislation is good/just.

    Anti-discrimination laws aren't arbitrary exercises in stifling rights or freedoms, they are means of protecting rights and freedoms from those who WOULD stifle them.
    But I have given arguments that anti-discrimination laws do, in fact, violate rights. While on the other hand, using force against someone for refraining from exchanging with you is not a human right, but is a violation of the other person's rights. Thus you have it exactly backwards.

    On the whole, I think discouraging discrimination is a good idea.
    So do I. I'm just saying that force is not among the acceptable means of doing so.

    Originally posted by phank View Post
    I'm not the morality police.
    Oh? But you do think force should be used against people who make decisions about exchanging that you think are immoral.
    Wow, we are REALLY not communicating. Murder does injury. Murder has actual victims. Most (but not quite all) laws serve the purpose of social management and would do so even if there were no such thing as morality.
    The distinction you point out is what distinguishes those immoral acts (injustice) that justify the use of force in response, and those immoral acts (vices) that do not warrant the use of force.
    It's morality either way. It necessarily involves the question of whether/when the use of force is acceptable or unacceptable. Your attempt to sidestep morality involves moral assumptions such that social interaction (or certain forms of it) are good, and violence against it is bad and that certain protections of social interactions from said violence is good.

    Originally posted by phank View Post
    The question is, are you a professional who does his job as advertised?
    Just as there is no metaphysical state of "for sale", there is also no metaphysical state of "his job".
    Now there is the case of someone hired (contracted) to do a job, but that's not really what we are talking about. We are talking about someone who happens to engage in exchanges. In the real world this is constantly in flux--he can change what he does at any time--with no fixed "job" for the person who works for themselves. It seems to be increasingly more likely that your position depends on faulty ideas of economics.

    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Personally, I regard laws as generally beneficial, even though they are sometimes a bit hard on those who break them.
    Just legislation is beneficial. Unjust legislation harmful. It seems imprudent to give any legislation the benefit of the doubt of being "generally beneficial." Or are you making an empirical claim that most of the legislation that man has actually created in human history has been beneficial, even though it could have been otherwise? Or are you just saying that there exists some (beneficial) laws that are necessary? I would agree with that last one.

    This is a reasonable question, and I think the reasonable answer is that once the anti-discrimination laws are in place, they WILL get someone else. They'll shop around for the best deal in all respects.
    Incidentally, with those laws in place it will be harder for the customer to know who is bigoted against them, because bigoted sellers will conceal it because of the law. I've seen some people argue against anti-discrimination laws on the grounds that they would rather legally permit the bigots to display/announce their bigotry so we know who they are so that they can be avoided, boycotted, publicly ridiculed, etc.



    (Pedantic disclaimer that seems to continue to be necessary: I do not want to prejudicially discriminate. I condemn prejudicial discrimination. I'm arguing only that it doesn't justify the use of force. Not swinging the axe does not in any way imply approval of such discrimination. And neither does it preclude using other effective, nonviolent means to oppose said discrimination. We must defend rights even for people with whom we disagree.)

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
4 responses
19 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
16 responses
197 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
422 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Working...
X