Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

sheesh! We have laws to protect people and society...we have laws to prevent discrimination....We have laws to protect the overall good of society.... We have laws to enforce rights and to solve conflicts...We have laws to prevent or deter people from behaving in a manner that negatively affects the quality of life of other people.
In Australia in most public places now, stores restaurants, some bus shelters, train stations etc smoking is banned...
We live in a democratic society where laws for the good society as a whole are totally necessary.
If you don't like it go somewhere else.
If you can't find anywhere else to suit your obviously snivel libertarian desires, then you have a problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paradoxically, the more free you are as a society, the more free you are to commit crimes. In a true totalitarian state, one cannot even contemplate crimes. Have you read 1984? Anyway, contract laws are rules. What do you do if reputation isn't enough? Such as when a society is larger than a small village? You create enforcement mechanisms, in other words, rules. I'm not saying private property is public, just that there is a public sphere in which different rules apply. It's like saying if you can't beat your kids in your own house, you aren't truly free.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So if you lived in a city where every white business had a "NO NI**ERS ALLOWED" in the window - you would support the right of those business owners to exclude them?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course. And I prefer a free society with crime to 1984.

And here comes the new point: Indeed, the failure to construct a working reputational system for a large society was fatal for libertarian societies and has restricted them essentially to small communities.

But today we have the technical possibilities to create a global reputational system:

1.) You sign a contract electronically. Part of the contract is the choice of an arbiter. The arbiter receives signed by above participants letter that they accept him as the arbiter in case of a conflict.
2.) If a conflict arises, the arbiter decides.
3.) If one of the sides does not accept the decision, the arbiter puts an entry with the information about this into a global black list. The entry contains, of course, the acceptance letter, which makes it impossible to fake such an entry without the ability to fake electronic signatures.

Once such a system is created, a lot of people will participate - because a refusal to participate makes you suspect.

This system gives a sufficiently strong penalty for contract breaking - the fact that you have broken a contract becomes visible to everybody (the black list will be open even to non-participants) and forever. This is strong enough to prevent almost every contract breaking: You have only one possibility to break contracts in your life.

 

Yes. As well as the right of the blacks to exclude the whites. And the right of everybody to exclude me. For whatever reason, or even without reason.

 

Then we shall have to agree to disagree. Such intentional, systemic and comprehensive discrimination can (and has) caused grievous damage to our society. It is a freedom that has been regularly abused by bigots - and that abuse is why we now have laws that limit those abuses.

 

So what if a large concern decides not to use a reputation system? People will still do business with them because it's profitable, but they call all the shots? Nothing in your system would prevent a monopoly.

 

I think the discrimination has been systematic and comprehensive only because of laws which support it, like the Jim Crow laws. Once these laws are removed, there may remain for some time some tradition of discrimination, but it will decrease.

 

Of course, if it appears profitable, because they don't cheat, what's the problem? You don't like monopolies? Big deal.

The monopolies of the real world are monopolies essentially only with state support. The universal monopoly-making device is, of course, patent law, which allow the patent holder simply to forbid others to use the patented technology - the dream of every monopolist. The other universal monopoly-supporting device is a large bureaucracy. The point is that to manage obligatory state bureaucracy imposes costs, and these costs are not proportional to the production, but much greater for small business than for big business.

Some anti-monopoly laws exist - but they have a different purpose. They force the big firms to support a lobby which buys the politicians. There have been firms without such a lobby, Microsoft and Walmart, they have got some problems with anti-monopoly laws - they have learned the lesson, now they have a big lobby in Washington and, as a consequence, no problems with anti-monopoly laws.

 

The next one with the expected reaction.

"2+2=5"
"No, 2+2=4"
"Why is this always the go to argument for bigots?"

The answer is simple, if the "non-bigots" always use similar personal diffamation techniques, like calling their opponents bigots, or accusing them to hate gay customers, without any evidence at all if they have customers at all, and even less about what they think about gays, they will, of course, always receive similar defenses.

 

Whether applied from a societal level or a personal level, you’re still advocating for a system of law. The difference is the first is a product of refined tradition, and the other is a product of an individual’s personal experience. In a sense societal law codifies the knowledge of the wheel, where the individual has to continually reinvent it. Once societal law gets it right, what’s’ the point of having each individual retard social progress by reenacting the sordid process for themselves?

 

The point is that I doubt the "once". Democratic societies are unable to get the law right, in principle.

There are well-known economic explanations why. The main point is that good laws are a common good - everybody has an advantage from them, even without making any personal investment for getting them. So, to get good laws is a classical common good problem.

Instead, there is the typical bad law - a law which harms the majority as well as the society as a whole, in favour of a small minority. Ok, even for this small minority to get the bad law through will be some common good problem - but, once the group is much smaller, the corresponding common good problem is also much smaller. So, with some simplification, one can say that these bad laws are private goods. Those who invest money to get them will receive at least a large part of the advantages this bad law gives to the small group.

Thus, economic theory clearly predicts that there will be more investment of small groups to get laws in their interest, harming society as a whole, than investment to get good laws for the whole society. The observation of lobbyism in real life and the consideration of the resulting laws clearly support this theoretical consideration. Democratic law will be bad law - law which harms society as a whole but favours small but organized interest groups.

 

Oh look, the bigot is a right-wing zealot. What a surprise...

 

What characterize people propagating hate?

They like to classify people, subdivide them into groups, which they can, then, hate. These groups receive bad names like "zealot" or "bigot" or whatever else. Evdence to prove their classifications they usually don't need.

 

The irony of this is, liberalism is the side of the political divide that preaches diversity. Diversity teaches people of a given sub-set, to enjoy being limited to their own home culture, and not to assimilate into the bigger unified culture. This approach makes all groups, outsiders, to all other groups, thereby perpetuating differences, that can lead to exclusion.

If I go into a community of people, who speak a common language, that I don't know, and they don't know my language, how does this differ from a sign in the window that says, no "XYZABC" allowed? This is not comfortable for anyone, although business people might still try get your business. There is no sign but the same wall has been induced.

The liberal leadership strategy is to divide and segregate people and then take advantage of their moron base, who will not think, fact check to even see the cause and effect. The will blame the conservatives for the problem will appear. They teach diversity, which will lead to walls, and they use this to call their enemies bigots. Only the liberals get to exclude; women's rights, gay rights, etc.

The Democratic party was the original party of slavery and discrimination. They are also the ones who now preach diversity. They found a loophole in the law that allows them to induce segregation, with their moron base conditioned to blame the party of Lincoln for the problem that result.

It is not coincidence that the cities with the most black unrest, are controlled by the democratic party. They tell them to enjoy diversity as a third world african society. Don;t use the cannon areas because whites use that. Their moron base assumes this due to the conservatives, who lack any political power in these cities, but somehow are able to conspire. The conservatives preach melting pot, so these walls fall.

 

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

 

Remember that time Oklahoma considered calling off marriage? And what did they come up with? Just give it over to the clergy. Sort of.

Yeah. We'll see how that goes.

But also look at what the present aspect of the discussion is down to.

Our neighbor is welcome to put his idea idea before voters.

I'm guessing voters, asked to give up all the things we consider benefits of marriage, will say no.

Meanwhile, I would note the desperation in Oklahoma is insane:

• SB 478 ― "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender". This bill seeks nothing more than a blanket state imprimateur for sex discrimination. And, yes, there will some hurt and trouble as people rally to the courts in order to appropriately dispense with such a law. But we should also take a moment to consider that SB 478 would declare marriage equality an emergency. This is one of the most awesome idiocies I've seen in the Gay Fray, but it really is a dangerous bill. They may be ostensibly going after marriage equality, but they're also going after women in general. Because they must, apparently, as the emergency declaration is "immediately necessary for the presesrvation of public peace, health and safety".

• HB 1125 ― "An Act relating to marriage licenses; amending 28 O.S. 2011, Sections 31 and 152.4, which relate to fees; modifying fee; providing fee for recording marriage certificate or affidavit of common law marriage; deleting marriage license fee collection procedure; amending 43 O.S. 2011, Sections 3, 5.1, 7, 8, 9, as amended by Section 6, Chapter 278, O.S.L. 2012 and 115 (43 O.S. Supp. 2014, Section 9), which relate to marriage; deleting reference to marriage licenense; describing procedure when written permission is required for marriage; directing permission be retained by official or affixed to affidavit; providing reduced marriage certificate fee if premarital counseling is completed; providing exception; allowing assemblies with no ordained minister to solemnize marriages; allowing affidavit of common law marriage; providing filing of affidavit with court clerk; listing contents of affidavit; requiring execution of marriage certificate; listing contents of certificate; directing filing of certificate with court clerk; instructing court clerk to record certificate or affidavit; setting forth procedures for recording and recordkeeping; requiring entity to accept certificate or affidavit as proof of identity or marital status; providing applicability; construing provision; providing punishment for judge or clerk recording prohibited marriage certificate; providing statutory form for marriage certificate; repealing 43 O.S. 2011, Sections 4, 5, as amended by Section 1, Chapter 192, O.S. L. 2013, 6, 10, 19 and 36 (43 O.S. Supp. 2014, Section 5), which relate to marriage; providing for codification; and providing an effective date." This is the one I mentioned above. As I noted in March, it won't actually stop marriage equality. This is just a tantrum, and its furious desperation is striking. And it also prescribes fines and jail time for solemnizing a same-sex marriage. Seriously, this is what it comes to.

• HB 1599 ― "An Act relating to marriage; creating the Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act; prohibiting public funds for any activity licensing or supporting same-sex marriage; prohibiting public employees from recognizing same-sex marriage licenses; prohibiting spending public funds to enforce certain court orders; directing state courts to dismiss challenges to the act; providing for payment of costs and attorney fees; prohibiting interference with implementation of the act; requiring removal of office for any judge violating the act; stating effectiveness of act against federal court rulings; providing for severability; providing for codification; and declaring an emergency." Honestly, I think what strikes me most about this is that somebody actually tried to put that whole idea into legislative words. This is actually looks like part of the whole pretense by which soccon hardliners are threatening insurrection. Nullification just doesn't work; and they know that, but if they pass the bill into law and it gets knocked down in court they will still pose as aggrieved.​

This started with the idea of pulling the state out of marriage altogether, a "discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all".

But it also undermines our neighbor's argument: There is virtually no way the people will agree to "Remove the benefits to married people". Yet there is still irony in that, too. Consider that longstanding argument about how gay marriage would redefine the family. Removing the benefits to married people? That won't just "redefine" the family; it will "redefine" our society. Additionally, the effort to forestall marriage equality has even tried to parse it as a matter of words; give them civil unions with all the benefits, but just don't call it marriage. And what are we supposed to think of this idea that we're down to the proposition of just getting rid of those benefits altogether, for everyone?

No, really, how are we supposed to take that bit seriously?

But this is also an apparent error in our neighbor's formula, like the point about Jim Crow laws. Capracus and Billvon have dealt with the detail there, but in a broader view of certain conservative-libertarian rhetoric there seems to be some sort of gap between the state and laws to the one, and the people who compose and craft them to the other. And it keeps coming up; as Billvon noted about desegregation and other issues, we might also wonder where we will find the people willing to "remove the benefits to married people" for everyone. Such a law won't simply arise ex nihilo. It will require human crafting, passage, and enforcement. The State may be the State may be the State, but it is composed of people, and it seems a difficult proposition to "remove the benefits of married people" when all the evidence on record shows the people who make up various state entities are, when addressing the question of "benefits of married people", scrambling to protect those rights for certain groups. And look at what Oklahoma came up with when they tackled the question of marriage and State.

All our neighbor suggests is unsettling one of the foundational structures of our society.

Even Oklahoma isn't willing to go that far. Compared to basic reality, it seems an extraordinary proposition that we should continue to take such arguments as "remove the benefits to married people" seriously.

 

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

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

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

You completely ignore here some extremely important points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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