Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

I think people have the right to discriminate - the right to decide with which people they want to cooperate, and with which people they don't want.

Of course, you have a right to support other people of your choice - in particular, to defend people which you think have been attacked, and to support those you think are discriminated. But you do not have the right to attack those who have not attacked first - and the refusal to cooperate is not an attack.

Or their own money, or for money of volitional donors.

But you feel that people can be paid or make money out of discrimination.[/QUOTE]
How? Ok, by providing a place, where blacks, or women, can meet each other without the risc to meet whites, or man - this is, of course, a possibility to make money based on discrimination. And I have no problem with this. The only problem I see is when taxpayers money are used to support discrimination.

If they do not hate them, why discriminate against them?[/QUOTE]
If they defend the right of others to discriminate, it does not follow that they discriminate themself. It is a standard attack against those who defend the right to discriminate to claim that they discriminate.

The defense of freedom is something which makes a lot of sense - but it is also a quite nontrivial thing. One has to understand that defending freedom means defending the right of other people to do things you don't like yourself.

I don't advocate state discrimination. All what the state is doing should be done without any discrimination.

But I advocate the right of every individual to discriminate. And there is no right not to be discriminated against. With a single exception: the right not to be discriminated by the state. Everybody else has the right to discriminate against you, without even an obligation to explain you why. A simple "I don't want to have any sex/business/whatever else with you" is sufficient. And you have no right not to be discriminated in such a way. In particular, you have no right to act against a sexual discrimination with rape or a business discrimination with enforcing slave labor.

The best way is to give the state no power to do such things in general, by a strong constitution which fixes as much rights of the people as possible. The right to discriminate is an essential part of the freedom of contract and should be enforced by the constitution.

Men are, of course, and obviously, not equal. They should, nonetheless, be treated as equal by the law. So any special laws supporting whatever group - families, whites, blacks, man, women, gays, heteros, should be unconstitutional. This restriction for discrimination by the state is important.

But men are free, and should be free, to organize their life in such a way that they minimize their contacts with people they don't like, and try to have contact only with people they like - the right to discriminate.

And here I disagree, completely and absolutely. There is no such right - except for the right not to be discriminated by the state.

Yes, but nobody is obliged to behave in such a stupid way. The time I spend with business is time of my life, and a lot of it, and if I organize my life in such a way that I'm happy doing my business, this gives something much more important than a few bucks which I possibly loose.

And, again, the discussion is about my rights and freedoms. It is not about which business decisions are wise and which are stupid. So, I agree with you that it is, in general, a stupid business decision to reject customers because of their race. That means, because the majority of business providers is not stupid, that such discrimination, if not enforced by Jim Crow laws, will not survive long in the business. But, of course, if there are a lot of stupid racist customers, it can be a reasonable business decision for a local provider to make a business for these stupid racists. This will increase the overall peace in this racist village, because the stupid racists in this case segregate themself in this racist bar and do not cause conflicts in other, non-discriminating bars.

The law is clear, but unjust and stupid. It forces people to do things they hate, and this is a certain mechanism to increase hate in society. It will be used by the most indecent, members of the groups, those with sadistic character traits, because decent people will, independent of antidiscrimination laws, not use services of people which somehow show that they don't want to provide these services.

This is a classical line of argumentation in favour of a totalitarian state. One uses the "benefits", which the private organization cannot even avoid of receiving, simply because providing these "benefits" is a state monopoly enforced violently, to justify even more state power.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fine with me - a couple of examples of bigoted practices towards Jews that do only the kinds of harm everyone has to live with from the civilized enemies that are their neighbors, then.

A couple of examples of whatever the hell you are actually talking about, was the request.

And you provide this:

So organized and enforced boycotts motivated by bigotry against Jews are fine with you - they are part of freedom, yes? A group of trucking companies refusing to deliver to any business that sells anything to a Jew, such as food, for example, or the members of a fire department refusing to put out fires in Jew-owned structures - that would be part of living in a free society, according to you?

Those are not examples of bigoted practices directed at Jews.

So in a free society, the people who provide the necessities of life - food, clothing, shelter - to anyone not living on a subsistence farm can all get together and deny them to Jews - that is an example of the kinds of harm any Jew who wants to live in a free society must learn to live with.

We seem to be running into logical problems. Are you now eliminating the State's role in protecting people from violence by other people, or do you regard bigotry motivated and community organized denial of food, clothing, and shelter, fire and police protection, medical care, schooling, etc, to be non-violent?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The usual and expected tactics: "enforced" boycotts are, of course, things which include the use of force, thus, are not ok with me.
Then, fire departments are usually state monopolies - and I have made clear that states have no right to discriminate - only the people have this right.

On the other hand, of course, I have no objection if somebody argues to boycot firms which behave in some unethical way. Thus, I think people have the right to boycot other people or firms. And, once they have this right, that means, they have this right also out of bad motives.

Yes - and they can, because this is completely unrealistic, and jews have learned to live with much more realistic dangers.

A denial to sell something is, indeed, not violent. And, moreover, the danger that a large community will do this are minimal - except for the case than the state is enforcing such boycotts. And if only a small community does such things, it may be uncomfortable (one has to pay higher prices) but in general it is not dangerous.

And, then, as a libertarian I see no positive role of the state at all. The state is a criminal gang which has reached the monopoly of criminal actions in a given territory. The state may "protect" citizens against competitors in the criminal sector - this is a natural fight against competitors - but this does not make the state something good.

Of course, I recognize that those who profit from the state, and those who think they profit from the state (the propaganda machine of the state is strong) think different and defend the criminal actions of the state. All I can do here is to explain them some of the harm caused by states, and give them some ideas how to minimize the harm done by states. But I recognize that in general I have no chance, they will continue to name the states protection racket "taxation" and accept it as just.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The laws are certainly clear, and just as certainly just and logical.
What you are proposing is the law of the jungle, where the strong overcome the weak and meek.
While we are certainly animals, we are supposed to be also civilised, and as a civilised society, we need laws to protect those that are vulnerable and/or weak for any number of reasons.
Laws while being what could be described as a necessary evil, are totally necessary to protect the weak and vulnerable, and to stop discrimination and other forms of persecution.
Giving people the right to "discriminate" is the first step to giving them the right to persecute.
We don't live in a perfect society yet, and until we can improve our lot for humanity as a whole, and everyone evolve to respect their neighbours regardless of beliefs, then we will need laws.
Perhaps my enthusiasm for a united effort for space travel, exploration, and the search for more knowledge, will in time see your idealistic society, with no laws and certainly no discrimination, come closer to fruition.
I see this as a cue for the following insightful speech......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No. The "law of the jungle" is the usual state. Because the state is nothing but the organization which has the monopoly of force in a given territory.

 

No, the "law of the jungle" in other words no law, are what you propose in some twisted form of society.
One can only be thankful your type is in the minority.

 

Ukulele No Good

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"Ukulele no good": Click the picture in order to have more fun than reading this post.​

I would like to borrow your post for a moment aside, because in truth I'm having trouble with the prospect that our neighbor is responding to an American iteration of an issue―i.e., this starts with Indiana's RFRA―by invoking political philosophies that are inapplicable under the U.S. Constitution.

And while it is heartening to find, as you note, that our neighobor's attitudes are a minority, I should also thank you all for undertaking such futility, and I know that doesn't sound quite right.

But ... this whole thing is a distraction. The whole point is to return the discussion to some inapplicable abstraction because it's a hell of a lot easier to posture bigotry as some sort of victim if, well, you know, we ignore the evidence put forth by reality.

To review a few of these RFRAs:

• Indiana: Intended to allow exclusion of homosexuals from publicly licensed businesses.

• Alabama: Revised to general futility in wake of Indiana hullaballoo.

• Louisiana: Legislature said no, so Gov. Jindal is attempting to enact a law through executive order.

• Texas: Legislature considering religious freedom protections to state agents who enroll homosexual children in re-education programs, or withhold reproductive health services from pregnant minors in their care.​

When we think back to the Arizona attempt, it is significant that even Gov. Brewer could figure this out. Whatever else her faults might be, when she, a Republican governor, sat across from the business community and heard just how badly that bill was going to hurt Arizona, it was probably a much easier decision than she let on.

Meanwhile, it is worth noting that at least one minister has been arrested for demonstrating religious conscience; she married a same-sex couple.

Oh, right. Oklahoma. Where they are considering a bill that would jail magistrates who solemnize same-sex marriages.

When it comes to reserving publicly licensed businesses to the privacy of domicile, or removing the benefits to marriage―no, seriously, I mean, really?―how are we dealing even remotely within the bounds of reality? There can be no "law of the jungle" in these United States; that's not how it works.

And, yes, there is a connected set of ideas that leads to all of this; we've seen religious conscience objections including sabotage of birth control to the United States government successfully excluding women from the vote because the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the laws to all persons within a state's jurisdiction didn't apply to women. From some once upon a time and on through the twentieth century and into the new, traditional powers have struggled to retain their influence; every political struggle is a class struggle. There are certain supremacies in our society that appear to be undergoing a downgrade; mere equality is horrifying, so they cast themselves as victims.

And this whole distraction? Really? The monopoly of force? Over this? In the face of this evidence? This reality? It is nothing more than a farcical attempt to cast bigotry as some sort of victim.

I wouldn't tell anyone to not take on this manner of challenged rhetoric, but I would also point out that all of this side discussion is the point. We are to look away from what is really happening in order to play some fantasy game in which bigots are the victims.

The whole point is to get you to waste your energy on abstraction, that you aren't giving as much thought to what is really happening. Epic trolling, sure, but also pretty much standard fare for this particular role in the American political discourse. We should expect to see some of this in the presidential contest.

But the whole point is to get us all to look away.

 

Just to explain: There is the law of the jungle - people have to do what the guys with the guns - the guys with the monopoly of force in a given territory - that means, the state - tells them. They are, essentially, slaves of the state. If the state decides that they have to work for the state, they have to work for the state. Nobody asks them if they agree. The men with the guns are the law.

Then, there is the civilized alternative - a society based on volitional contracts. The only obligation people have is to hold their contracts.

There may be a small minority which is not ready to sign any contracts. But they are not dangerous, because those who cooperate with each other are stronger. So, they can defend themself. And they don't have to apply the amoral law of the jungle - a monopoly of force - against them. No, a classical tit for tat strategy, which handles even these outcasts as equals, is sufficient.

All other, reasonable people accept civilized rules of behaviour volitionally. Possibly because of their own moral decisions, possibly because other people make this a presumption for cooperation - if you do not accept these basic moral principles, we will not cooperate with you. Some will follow their own rules just because they think they should, are morally obliged to follow these rules. Some because they think that once they have accepted these rules volitionally, they have to follow them - or openly announce that they no longer would - no matter how stupid these rules are. Because one should hold promises. Other people may do this because they are afraid of the consequences of breaking their word. What are these consequences? Very simple, nobody cooperates with people known to break their promises, for simple egoistic reasons - they don't want to be fooled.

As you can see, this civilized society has some methods for motivating people to accept reasonable contracts, and, then, to follow these contracts. These methods do not require the use of the uncivilized "monopoly of force" (better: monopoly of criminal action) of the state. All one needs is "tit for tat" relative to non-cooperating people, combined with the right to discriminate between those which behave appropriately (sign reasonable contracts and follow them) and those who don't.

There is, and has always been, a fight between this civilized society and those who rely on brute force - the state. And, of course, one way to win this fight is to destroy the very possibility of the other side to create and defend their own society. Once the civilized society is, as explained, based on the right to discriminate against those who break contracts or refuse to sign reasonable contracts, it is important for the state to reject this right.

A state may be even an authoritarian police state - as long as he does not destroy the base of the civilized society, the civilized society has a good chance to survive, because the members of the civilized society can support each other, and ignore the authoritarian bastards - and have even the right to do this. Of course, the authoritarian bastards will take what they want - and one cannot risc, in a police state, to openly refuse to serve those in uniform simply because they are part of the police. Nonetheless, everybody knows that such a service, out of fear, is of lower quality (except for sadists, they even prefer this) than a volitionally given service.

And so there is something especially destructive, something which makes the difference between a pure authoritarian police state and a totalitarian state, that the very base of the civilized society - the right to exclude those who behave in an uncivilized way - is not only fought with brute police force, but rejected as amoral by the state ideology. You no longer have to do what the Big Brother tells, you have to Love the Big Brother.

The anti-discrimination ideology is, obviously, the ideal weapon for the new totalitarian state. The Big Brother not only tells you that you have to behave nicely in relation to policemen, but that you have to love them. The refusal to love them would be, of course, discrimination. (Tomorrow, the Big Brother possibly explains you that you have to hate some of them, and, then, the refusal to hate them makes you a supporter of these non-humans. But this is another question, off-topic here.)

 

All that stuff is obvious and we all know about it. What needs explaining is how you plan to deal with the conflict between the State's obligation to protect people from "violence", and a denial of the State's jurisdiction over the harms done to people by bigoted people acting from their bigotry.

And the specific matter was what kinds of bigoted practices against Jews you thought did little harm. We still don't know what you could be referring to, as you have provided no examples.

So the owners of food, clothing, and shelter would not be doing violence by denying them to people.

No, it is very common throughout history. Not minimal at all. The entire southern half of the United States was such a community - millions of people, thousands of miles, hundreds of towns, among which (for example) no roadside motel would rent a room to a black person.

This may be your central confusion - you have no knowledge of how people actually behave in real life.

 

There is no conflict - even if you, as an etatist, think that the state has an "obligation to protect people from violence", this would be a protection from violence, but not from "violence". Protection from "violence" is, in fact, usually an indication that the state becomes more and more totalitarian, and its ideology more and more hypocritical and mendacious, naming non-violent behaviour "violent".

You know already, I have given the explicit relevant example.

This is an example where the boycott is enforced by the state, by Jim Crow laws, thus, not relevant for a discussion of a free society which does not force people to discriminate.

And, indeed, it is the definition of ownership, that the owner of something is allowed to do with his property what he wants, he can even destroy them, and this is not considered as doing violence to others. Of course, it is clear and obvious, that other people would be happy to own these things too, thus, by not giving them away they may feel somehow "harmed". And if they try to steel them, it will be even taken away from them with force. But even this use of force does not count, because it is considered as a just use of force. The basic libertarian moral principle is not accidentally named "no aggression principle" - it allows doing harm in non-aggressive ways, allows violence in defense against an aggression, but forbids aggression, which includes also use of the property of somebody else without permission.

 

I do certainly not believe that democratic states will defend people's fundamental rights. To defend them, people have to rely on themself and to support each other. But the democratic state is certainly not an institution which is helpful in supporting fundamental human rights - nor of majorities, nor of minorities. They may support special interests of some minorities - those with accept to media and with a sufficiently strong lobby - but even in this case they will usually not defend their fundamental human rights, but particular interests far beyond such human rights.

I believe that "fighting back" requires, for its justification, a definite act of fighting, moreover one which is morally unjustified. So, if a simple refusal to act is already considered sufficient to "fight back" in a form which definitely uses force, we simply have a dictatorship of those who "fight back".

Of course, you have a right to "fight back" in an appropriate, non-escalating way. This is named "tit for tat" or "an eye for an eye". So, if these bigots refuse to cooperate with you, you have any right to refuse to cooperate with them.

Read carefully. Of course, they can study string theory - as I can study ether theory. But they have to right to use for this taxpayer's money. I also don't have such a right, and I don't receive taxpayer's money. I have made a clear difference: The state does not have a right to discriminate.

No. Whatever institution wants to discriminate, for whatever reason, should not have access to public money for this purpose. Of course, in sufficiently totalitarian states, there essential things are by force given to the state, no private institution can avoid using these forced "services" - and to pay for them, directly or by taxes - so that this cannot count as using taxpayer's money.

I have no issue at all. If they want to meet at the same place, fine. If they want to meet at separated places, fine too.

You want to restrict their freedom to meet separately. You will force the owner of a club for women which have been rape victims to serve men, up to the rapists themself after their prison sentence - because excluding them would be sexual discrimination. Not?

Learn to read.

No. If the owner of a private shop refuses to sell you something, no right and freedom of you is in any way restricted. You do not even have a right to visit his property, moreover you have no right to receive his property or his services.

It is a particular example where the right to discriminate is obviously essential and there it is also obvious that a "right not to be discriminated" would be completely off.

A good question.

On the one hand, there are certain "offers" which the state "offers" by force, obligatory, so that you cannot avoid them without violating the law. To "benefit and enjoy" such "services" should clearly not reduce the other basic freedoms. If visiting public schools is obligatory for children, this cannot be used to force the them later to give up their rights.

On the other hand, there are clear cases where the benefit by the state is not enforced, but essential for the very existence of the business. A school which is formally private but receives public money. Prisons are also often private. They should not have a right to discriminate.

But there are, of course, a lot of things, which do not fall into these two categories. The modern society is to a high degree run by the state, so there are a lot of various volitional interactions with institutions run by the state - often one does not even know that a firm is actually owned by the state. This should not count.

I simply defend the right of the others not to have sex with you and not to work for you if they don't want. But this is not an attack on your freedom, because I do not accept that you have the freedom to rape and enslave others.

No, in a free society nobody has the right to rape or enslave other people. And everybody has the right to decide if he agrees to have sex with somebody else, or to work for him - thus, to discriminate between all those who want to have sex with him or want to use their services.

 

Of course, the refusal to have sex with you, but not with another person I love to have sex with, is an obvious discrimination. It may be motivated by your gender, by your race, by your body characteristics, by your religious belief, by whatever else - thus, whatever form of discrimination you consider as especially bad may be involved.

If this is considered as discrimination, and forbidden, you can nonetheless force me to have sex with you, completely legal. If this is your response, I name this rape.

You believe you have the right to rape and enslave other people, I don't accept that such a right exists at all. So this is clearly not a question of which right is more important.

Take a beginners course in biology. I think even the basic education given by american schools should be sufficient.

Of course, because people do every day things which harm others. I buy the last thing of a certain type in a shop, which you also wanted to buy. Does this harm you? Certainly. Do I support a criminal law which sends me to prison for doing this? Certainly not. There are things people have the right to do, even if they harm others. This is the very purpose of defining property: I can do on my property, with my property, things you don't like, and harm you by doing things you don't like.

Indeed. As a non-american, I watch from outside how America degenerates into a totalitarian state, and essentially cannot do anything except to hope that this degeneration will not lead to WW III and the end of mankind.

It is only one aim of doing business. There are also other things worth to care about. To care only about earning a profit is stupid.

The thread is about the right to discriminate. I use this right every day, by my choices with which people I talk, play, and do whatever we like. I see this right is questioned in America. Fortunately, I don't live in America, so in principle I couldn't care less, poor Americans, poor North Koreans, give them a little bit pity and then let's do more reasonable things. So, in this sense, it is not really about my rights and freedoms.

But, unfortunately, american propaganda is present all over the world, and influental everywhere - and it distributes this totalitarian .... everywhere. That's why it is also about my rights.

Very simple, because decent members of these groups - decent people in general - will never use services of people who don't do this volitionally.

Those who do not accept that they are not welcome in a certain institution and ready to use state force to enforce their access. If I appear in some institution and they tell me "sorry, you are not welcome here, this is only for women/buddists/black people/communists/fashists I say sorry and leave. But there are people who behave differently.

Who they are and why they have this personality problem I don't know. I would guess some genetic background exists, but environment and education will also have an influence. In particular, a sadist with good civilized education would behave in the same way as I, say sorry and leave. On the other hand, there may be some people which have no personality problems but follow a completely distorted ideology, which forces them to behave indecently, justifying this by some "fight against discrimination" and similar nonsense.

Indeed, I defend only the rights I believe should exist. In particular, the right to rape and enslave other people should not exist. I think this will be also in benefit of you. The refusal of a "right to rape" is, of course, harmful for some sadists, but they have other possibilities to manage their sexual life in a satisfactory way, for example in BDSM communities where they are welcome. Instead, the rejection of the right not to be raped - the right of discrimination in sexual matters - many people consider as extremely important.

For the right to enslave versus the freedom of contract (which includes the freedom of discrimination with whom to make contracts) the situation is similar, even if not that obvious.

 

The Big Ask

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

I would only reiterate, based upon the proposition that the question even needs to be asked, and especially in light of our neighbor's answer↑, that we do ourselves, the Sciforums community, and the human endeavor at large disservice by trying to take this kind of trolling pretense seriously.

This isn't just misogyny; it is misanthropy.

How many of our neighbor's abstractions pretty much require that we call off civilized society?

There comes a point at which pretending this isn't a "big ask" is kind of silly, I would think.

In truth, what I find fascinating is the proposition that our neighbor would put this sort of effort into goading and trolling. Indeed, we must pretend, in order to take such posts seriously―

"The refusal of a 'right to rape' is, of course, harmful for some sadists, but they have other possibilities to manage their sexual life in a satisfactory way, for example in BDSM communities where they are welcome."​

―that our right to govern our own bodies somehow extends to controlling other people's.

We might, then, applaud our neighbor for casting the underlying arguments in such sharply caricaturized relief, but at the same time we are also generally obligated to invoke Poe's Law.

In the end, I have a hard time convincing myself there is any particular functional justification for wasting my time directly addressing this sort of excrement.

To the other, I can't see an excuse to not hold our neighbor's performance up as an example of ... well ... something. It is difficult to see how the symbolic value of such a presentation gets marked in black ink according to any metaphorical ledger.

 

That was you, not me, who regarded protecting people from having other people do violence to them as the predominant and almost sole ethically sound function of the State. Enforcing contracts, for example, or restitution from embezzlers, because you regard theft and swindle as violent acts. Does that make you a Statist?

Then a simple cut and paste is all you need. Meanwhile, I can't find a single specific example from you anywhere on this thread, let alone the two or three you would need to enlighten us on what you actually talking about.

No, it wasn't. I specifically chose an example that was not a matter of law, but of free choice. The refusal to rent motel rooms to travelers was not enforced by the State. It was enforced by people freely choosing to treat black people in a racially bigoted manner, and shun anyone who didn't cooperate, without involving the police at all.

Same here:

Nobody's talking about laws, or anything to do with the State, there. A group of free people, or maybe just one rich banker everybody owes money, cooperating in treating Jewish people like garbage and socially coercing anyone who doesn't cooperate with them.

You know: the way bigotry is done, 90% of the time, causing considerable pain and suffering to its targets. Which seems to be OK with you, in a theoretical sense anyway.

Again: you appear to lack familiarity with real life. Why don't you know this stuff? How old are you?

 

No, a statist is one who argues in favour of the state. I sometimes do not question some justification used for the state, simply because this would be off-topic. Then, I often show the differences between what is claimed - namely that the role of the state is to protect people from violence - and what the state really does.

The explicit example of discrimination is simply a private firm refusing to make contracts with someone for whatever reasons.

Ok, such specifics I don't know. But, if a democratic state supports stupidity, there are always a lot of people which support even more stupidity.

Talking about fire departments does not have anything to do with the state? Ok, maybe, but this is quite typical something done by the state. And, of course, I know that some rich guy owning a media imperium can do a lot of harm by distributing hate in his media. But I'm sure that this harm will never be diminished by a democratic state - because such a media imperium creates a strong enough public opinion which hates. As a consequence, the democratic state, if he starts to act, will only fight those who oppose this media imperium - as supporters of those who are hated by everybody.

I know - but I'm sure that the state will only increase the harm done to the targets. Because the pain caused by discrimination is considerable for the targets only if it is supported by a majority - and a democratic state almost never acts against the majority opinion. (on the other hand, he always certainly acts against the interests of the majority - but the public opinion and the true interests of the majority are quite different things.)

Incorrect question. I would recommend you not to make wild guesses about your opponents.

 

You asserted that I was a Statist for repeating your own posted views of the proper role of the State back to you.

That is not a specific example of bigoted practices directed against Jews that do them no - or only acceptable - harms. Can you think of any? I cannot, but you say they exist, so I'm asking.

We are assuming free people, in this case firemen, who refuse to put out fires in buildings owned by Jews because they don't like Jews. The question was whether that would be acceptable to you.

Other examples would be cooperating owners of trucking and taxi firms, hospitals and clinics and dentists, farm supply outfits, grocery and clothing stores, etc.

Rich people can do a lot more than that, without involving the media at all. Farms and other small businesses usually cannot survive without a willing banker, for example, and so a racially bigoted cadre of bankers can see to it that an entire town refuses to do business with blacks, Jews, reds, women, etc.

Of course. But you continue to make assertions about them. Are you unaware of your ignorance?

Again: you are posting assertions from apparently complete ignorance about the real world. These are not merely theoretical matters, but questions of fact: we have plenty of historical and present day examples that contradict you. I mentioned the motel room racial bigotry problem, which is now much reduced because it was made illegal, but there are dozens of similar examples ready to hand from the old Confederacy - everything from medical care to house loans to meals at restaurants. The State intervened to prevent this kind of violence (as you call it), and everyone is better off now as a result - the perps as well as the targets.

By "better off" I mean more free, less restricted in their actions. Intervention by the State to prevent coercion often increases people's freedom of action.

? No guesswork involved - you have made numerous assertions that anyone with even modest familiarity with, say, racial bigotry in the US, or anti-Semitism in Europe, knows immediately were made in quite basic ignorance. How old are you?

 

If you are a libertarian, I'm sorry to have used defamatory words against you.

It is, and once we disagree already about this point, it makes no sense to introduce other points. I would guess sitting in the closet and reading Hitler, even if nobody knows about this, you will also classify as doing inacceptable harm to jews.

If the fire service is managed by the state, not. If it is a purely volitional organization, which does not receive any taxpayer's money, it would be morally unacceptable, but should not result in criminal persecutions.

Ok, rich man can do various things. Such is life. But if it is only an entire town, there is not much reason to care. The world is greater than a town.

I'm aware that I can err. And, of course, I'm aware that I don't know all the details of the Jim Cow laws - like that they did not cover motels. No problem, you can correct me.

 

No, it isn't. From this: " a couple of examples of bigoted practices towards Jews that do only the kinds of harm everyone has to live with from the civilized enemies that are their neighbors, then " to this: "The explicit example of discrimination is simply a private firm refusing to make contracts with someone for whatever reasons. " merely describes a vague and general category, and one that I think has no actual members that meet the necessary criteria.

So firefighters who take a paycheck from any government lose their freedoms, but the ones employed by something like a utility company still get to be bigots and let houses burn?

That's not the problem. The problem is that you don't seem to know how racial oppression actually works in real life, how bigots get together and do harm.

In your unfamiliarity with the real world you say so many silly things one hardly knows where to start, but this is my new favorite:

Let's take a poll: how many towns do people think it would take this guy? Would every town in a third of the United States, as with the motel problem, be enough?

 

Sorry, but I don't care about this. The example is, of course, general, but this gives you even more power to chose an example from this general category which presents my position in an unfavourable way.

Everybody who signs a job contract accepts the conditions on this job contract. It is obvious, that signing such a contract creates some obligations, namely to work during the working hours for the firm. I would require that the government makes it obligatory in their job contracts that their workers are obliged not to discriminate.

A private firm can, of course, make similar requirements in their job contracts. And a reasonable firm would do this. But, of course, bigots can also have firms (even if they are bigots, they remain to be human beings, even citizens, with human rights), and the firms of the bigots are free to discriminate.

This is your private theory, not based on any evidence. You seem to think that if you don't like something, or at least if you don't like it very much, society becomes better if the state forbids this. This is a naive and very fatal error. But to recognize this, one needs something more than pure emotions.

Instead of speculating how harmful boycotts by bigots may be, better think about what could be named "theorem of state support for bigots": Whenever boycotts by bigots will be supported by so many people that they become dangerous for some minority, they will be supported by every democratic state. This is simple to proof - the boycott becomes dangerous only if supported by a majority. But in such a situation hate speech against this minority gives certain support in elections, thus, a large majority of politicians will use such hate speech to win elections, and, then, of course, support the boycotts in various ways by the state.

In other words, the really harmful suppressions of minorities by bigots you cannot fight with the power of the state, at least not a democratic one. So, all you will fight, are harmless attempts to boycott, which are no more than a form of freedom of expression, with no real harm, because the majority does not support the boycott.

Note: These considerations remain valid even if I would believe that such boycotts, if supported by the majority, would inevitably kill the boycotted minority.