Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

Sorry, there was no necessity to desegregate schools. There was, possibly, an ideological necessity for this, for some antiracist egalitarian ideology, that's all. There would be a reasonable point to enforce that state schools are supported by the state strongly proportional to the number of children they educate, independent of racial and other characteristics of the children - because these are taxpayers money, paid by all, so, all have equal rights to receive their part. But this is already all.

There are also no needs to protect some special rights for blacks, gays or women - in fact, this is a violation of equality. You may argue that such a violation of equality is just, some sort of return for injustice against them in the past. But this is simply injustice justified by other injustice. The only protection which is justified is equal protection against violence. Slavery is, obviously, a form of violence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you feel it is OK for public schools to deny a student education on the basis of his race?

Correct. There was a need to protect the SAME rights, rights that everyone should have - but were denied by private people either owning slaves or denying blacks the right to transportation, housing, education etc.

So you have had violence committed against you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem is a more fundamental one. There is no reason at all to have even a little hope that just laws will appear in a democracy.

So what, should I stop naming unjust laws unjust laws if just laws have no chance anyway?

There is the interest group of married people. They receive a lot of taxpayers money for themself. There is the group of gay couples. They want to participate, and also get the taxpayers money - instead of staying on the losers side of those unmarried people who pay for married people.

But the married people do not plan to share. They want all the money spend for married people for themself. A typical conflict in democracies - everybody wants to live on the costs of others, get a bigger part from the taxpayers money.

The reasonable, good law would minimize such redistributions. Because there is even a theorem of economic theory that "the state cannot make gifts" - the point is if the state tries to make gifts, there will be fight among the candidates for receiving the gifts. And all the investments of the participants in these fights are, essentially, losses for the society as a whole. But as long as these costs are lower than the benefit one can obtain, investing in such a fight is reasonable for the individuals. As a result, the loss for the whole society caused by fighting for receiving the gifts will become equal to the gifts themself.

But the democratic state is unable to recognize this and to reduce redistribution. Even in principle. To defend the part of the redistribution one already receives is the easiest fight, so, everybody who receives such benefits will be ready to defend them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Only for a private school. For a public school, or any school living on taxpayers money, not.

Of course, not - I'm not an american, don't live in America, and in principle couldn't care less about violence in America. But as a libertarian, I support freedom fighting everywhere, even in the American police state.

And, of course, if the government forces me to close my hypothetical business on my private property, which offers services only for my friend, this would be a case of unjust violence by the state - because this business does not do any harm.

And it does not matter at all if the democratic majority likes this particular case of violence or not. Democracies like unjust laws.

 

You just said "Sorry, there was no necessity to desegregate schools." Now you are saying segregation is not OK. Which is it?

Well, you said you were a slave, and that slavery is a form of violence.

Not being an American you probably don't understand the amount of harm it did back in the 1950's and 1960's. My father lived through that; he thought the US might not survive the violence brought on by racism and bigotry.

 

I'm curious about what bigoted practices you find harmless to the targets of that bigotry.

Let's make a short list, using Jews as our example of target: what practices of bigotry against Jews by their neighbors would you find harmless?

 

still missing the point. there are benefits to marriage that more than just tax breaks. you can't remove those with out dismantling society so yes you are missing the point or more importantly like most people of your particular ideology don't really have one.

 

You will try where I start to be afraid? By replacing blacks and gays by a minority group which is even more protected by political correctness? Ok, no problem, I'm independent, cannot loose a job, so I don't have to care.

But, of course, I do not make explicit lists, I see no reason for this, and simply give a general answer:

The practices which are considered harmless if directed against whites, man, christians, and heterosexuals should be also considered harmless if directed against other group, inclusive jews. And, revere, the same. Practices, which are considered harmless if directed against jews, blacks, women or gays should also be considered harmless if directed against other groups.

Thus, no special legal rights for any group. All people have to be treated by the law equally.

 

I want to know this, too.

 

Of course, if you think that to stop distributing taxpayers money among families is impossible "with out dismantling society", you have completely different ideas about society. So we can agree to disagree, I simply see no sufficient common base for a further discussion.

 

I only ask for a few explicit examples, a short rather than an exhaustive list.
I'm not sure you have thought carefully about this, and your "general answer" seems to me an abstraction without any real content - but perhaps you can clarify the matter.

Here's the question again: what practices of bigotry against Jews by their neighbors would you find harmless?

 

My answer already contains what is important for me.

There is, of course, the other point which is also important for me - the proportionality of the penalty. "An eye for an eye" is an upper bound for penalties. I find it always funny if many people argue against this princip as much too harsh (because it allows death penalty for murder) without recognizing the many violations of this upper bound in harsh penalties for minor wrongdoings. Incarceration is, in particular, a quite serious form of violence - thus, is justified only in response to quite serious forms of violence.

If one takes "an eye for an eye" seriously, it is clear that a refusal to give a service to somebody is simply nothing worth to be mentioned by law - simply because the penalty which would be justified following "an eye for an eye" would be so laughable that it makes no sense to persecute. Here, the adequate reaction of the society is simple moral condemnation of those who do such things.

 

You still haven't explained which bigoted practices, specifically, "do not harm other people".

 

I have answered a posting where the use of violence (National Guard) to desegregate schools was justified. I think this is inadequate. I have made a more peaceful proposal - simply enforce that all public schools receive the same financial support, proportional to the number, but not the race, of the children.

This does not mean that segregation is ok. There should be no official way for a public school to reject a child because of its race. But I recognize, of course, that in a school system which was segregated, mandatory by law, a simple removal of the unjust laws does not automatically change the real life. This takes longer time. And, given that similar people prefer to live together, there will always remain regions with more black people, or more white people, or more asian people, or more latinos - and, correspondingly, the schools in these regions will have similarly children with origins different from the American average. So, some segregation will remain.

Of course, the general violence of states against the people in general is also directed against me. But I see no reason to discuss here my private life. And I have not described here something which has happened to me. Sentences of type "If I live in a state with such laws, and have a business, ... , then I'm a slave" do not mean that I actually live in a state with such laws and have a business.

 

Who cares what you want to know?

I have given the example which is relevant: If I have a shop on my private property, where I sell whatever I like to persons I like, but refuse to sell anything to people I do not like, I obviously do not harm people. This is the example which is relevant, because this is what, AFAIU, is actually forbidden at least in some states and for some types of business.

I understand that you want to go away from this simple and obvious example of injustice of "non-discrimination laws". But I see no reason to support you.

 

So in other words: You don't actually believe the BS you say, or you were deliberately lying, or you were just trolling?

Yeah, I can believe that.

 

You have claimed that there exist bigoted practices by neighbors against Jews that are harmless to those Jews.

I can't think of any, so I'm asking for a couple of examples of what you have in mind, so I can get an idea of what you are talking about.

This, for example, is false:

It's not only not "obvious", but we have counterexamples ready to hand: The refusal of shopowners to do business with Jews in some places and times, and likewise with blacks in America in the recent past, did considerable harm to those Jews and blacks.

So one wonders if you have any examples of harmless bigoted practices, any at all. Your argument depends on their existence.

 

No. Learn to read. I sometimes use "I" in theoretical examples, where it is clear for everybody who can read, that I do not talk about real personal experiences, but a hypothetical scenario.

 

Given your response about my example, we obviously do not need more. For me it is a classical example where it is obvious that the behaviour is not harmful beyond the harm which everybody has to live with if his enemies act against him in a civilized way.

Of course, say, boycotts may be harmful - and this is even the reason why one is doing them. But it is harm which one has to accept in a free society. If I go to court and accuse you of something, this may be harmful for you too, even if you win the case - but this cannot be forbidden in a civilized society (except for intentional false accusations). There are other harmful things I can do: Buying a house you wanted to buy by making a better offer. Harmful for you? Of course. But you have to live with this.

In the last two cases, I even start active actions. In the first two, I have a clear intention to harm especially you. None of these aggrevating circumstances is present if I simply do not make offers in my shop to people like you, and even inform you about this by a message on the door so that you do not loose time asking.

So, feel free to accuse me of an oversimplification by saying "no harm" instead of "no harm beyond the harm people cause constantly to others by not helping them or similar behaviour".

There have been cases where harm was caused because such boycotts were combined with violence, not only against the jews/blacks, but also against those who did not participate in the boycott.
If no such violence or threads of violence have been present, this would be something which may be subjectively "not harmless" at all - for some people it is not "harmless" if somebody calls them "bigot" - but something one has to bear up.

No. If you insist on such an exaggerated notion of "harmless", where almost nothing is harmless, I may have to reformulate the arguments, avoiding the word "harmless". That's all. Of course, it is a known 1984 technique to redefine the words, so that after this I would be unable to formulate my argument simply because the word necessary to formulate it no longer exist. The argument itself does not depend on such techniques.

I use "harmless" in the sense of "not doing harm", or, in more detail, of "not doing something which causes harm", where "doing something" means some active behaviour, and not simply a refusal to do something. If you insist that "harmless" means something completely different, be it, then use whatever english word which has this particular meaning.