Parents: The Door of Paradise

[Wizard of Whatever]

That's key. Biological evolution of our primate species is zero to do with religion and gods. Social animals have a code of conduct which does not involve Moses, Jesus or Mohammed. Our social evolution of ancient civilizations all over the globe varies with where they are and the culture they happen to be in.

See Sumerian, Babylonian and Old Testament sources and others to see how the gods (most likely just Aliens) genetically engineered humans from proto human or early human terrestrials.

 

[Sarkus]

Too many laws. too many restrictions, compulsion, and in some rare cases perversions. The evolution of law for the benefit of people has gone past its' balance point and is tending toward totalitarianism. Laws are not for the benefit of society, but for the benefit of the people comprising it. You don't restrict most of peoples choices because you are a do-gooder and believe yourself to be righteous.

Name some laws that, in your view, have gone too far. Evidence your claim.

 

[exchemist]

Too many laws. too many restrictions, compulsion, and in some rare cases perversions. The evolution of law for the benefit of people has gone past its' balance point and is tending toward totalitarianism. Laws are not for the benefit of society, but for the benefit of the people comprising it. You don't restrict most of peoples choices because you are a do-gooder and believe yourself to be righteous.

Interesting. What is a good example of a law tending towards totalitarianism, in your view?

 

[Pinball1970]

and that standard can only come from the Creator who knows human nature best

So no. Moral standards do not come from a creator, our ancestors evolved to be social animals just like wolves, monkeys and rats.
The live together, work together, fight enemies/strangers, protect the young and have relationships.
No religion or god's required.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Interesting. What is a good example of a law tending towards totalitarianism, in your view?

Drugs made illegal because a few can't handle them. Guns restricted because a few misuse them. Laws allowing gender reassignment surgery for minors. Laws or judges telling parents how to raise and educate their children. Tax laws that favor the rich.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Interesting. What is a good example of a law tending towards totalitarianism, in your view?

Here is a few more.
Telling people they have to sell their home to those they don't wish to.
Telling people they have to do business with those that they don't wish to. Telling people they have to hire those they don't wish to.

 

[exchemist]

Drugs made illegal because a few can't handle them. Guns restricted because a few misuse them. Laws allowing gender reassignment surgery for minors. Laws or judges telling parents how to raise and educate their children. Tax laws that favor the rich.

This is what totalitarianism is:

"Totalitarianism is a political system and a form of government that prohibits opposition from political parties, disregards and outlaws the political claims of individual and group opposition to the state, and completely controls the public sphere and the private sphere of society. In the field of political science, totalitarianism is the extreme form of authoritarianism, wherein all political power is held by a dictator. This figure controls the national politics and peoples of the nation with continual propaganda campaigns that are broadcast by state-controlled and state-aligned private mass communications media.[4]"

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

These examples of yours would appear to have nothing to do with the above.

 

[Pinball1970]

Here is a few more.
Telling people they have to sell their home to those they don't wish to.
Telling people they have to do business with those that they don't wish to. Telling people they have to hire those they don't wish to.

It is much broader and deeper than that. Disagreement with government policies does not in itself make it totalitarian. Check out www.hrw.org by country.

For North Korea. "....threats of execution, arbitrary punishment of crimes, detention, forced labour, restricted travel and communication with the outside world.
.......no tolerance of dissent, bans of independent media, civil.society, trade unions.....denies basic rights including freedom of expression, assembly, association and religion..."

It goes on.

Whilst some of those points may resonate in the US today, that is a far cry from North Korea where the most extreme versions exists on a permanent daily basis and have been for some time.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

This is what totalitarianism is:

"Totalitarianism is a political system and a form of government that prohibits opposition from political parties, disregards and outlaws the political claims of individual and group opposition to the state, and completely controls the public sphere and the private sphere of society. In the field of political science, totalitarianism is the extreme form of authoritarianism, wherein all political power is held by a dictator. This figure controls the national politics and peoples of the nation with continual propaganda campaigns that are broadcast by state-controlled and state-aligned private mass communications media.[4]"

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

These examples of yours would appear to have nothing to do with the above.

That's just the standard definition. It's also a catchall term for government intrusion where it shouldn't be. You can use any words you want, it is still restriction, compulsion, and perversion by government of all stripes..

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

It is much broader and deeper than that. Disagreement with government policies does not in itself make it totalitarian. Check out www.hrw.org by country.

For North Korea. "....threats of execution, arbitrary punishment of crimes, detention, forced labour, restricted travel and communication with the outside world.
.......no tolerance of dissent, bans of independent media, civil.society, trade unions.....denies basic rights including freedom of expression, assembly, association and religion..."

It goes on.

Whilst some of those points may resonate in the US today, that is a far cry from North Korea where the most extreme versions exists on a permanent daily basis and have been for some time.

So here it's just restriction and/or jail and/or fines. I'll now just call it the iron fist in the velvet glove.

 

[TheVat]

Drugs made illegal because a few can't handle them. Guns restricted because a few misuse them. Laws allowing gender reassignment surgery for minors. Laws or judges telling parents how to raise and educate their children. Tax laws that favor the rich.

A bit confused. How is a law allowing something totalitarian?

 

[Sarkus]

Telling people they have to sell their home to those they don't wish to.

In the US (I'm assuming you're that way inclined) there are some protected characteristics that you can't discriminate against, such as race, colour, religion, sex, nationality, disability, family status etc. Now, I'm assuming that "to those they don't wish to" is for reasons other than they are being a bigot? E.g. you just don't like the person? They were rude to you? Then there is no law that prevents you from not selling to them, is there? If you think there is, perhaps you can provide detail?

Telling people they have to do business with those that they don't wish to.

Again, other than for reasons that you're bigotted, there are no laws that stop you doing business with anyone you don't want to. I.e. there are laws that prohibit your reason for not doing business for, as previously, race, colour, religion, nationality, sex etc.

Are you against these anti-discrimination laws, or are you suggesting that there are other laws that prohibit you from refusing to do business with whomever you choose? If so, care to share which ones you are referring to?

In the US, if you open for business, you do take on legal duties, and one of those is not to be discriminatory. This is your duty if you wish to benefit from trading with the public. It's a trade-off, so to speak: you benefit from being able to trade with the public, so you are required not to be discriminatory. Are you against this trade-off?

Telling people they have to hire those they don't wish to.

Again, the only laws that might prevent you from doing so are the anti-discrimination laws.
Other than these, there is nothing to stop you not hiring someone. Noone is forcing you to hire anyone.
But, if you do recruit, you can not discriminate against protected characteristics (sex, age, religion, colour, nationality, race, disability, etc). Assuming someone is able to do the job that you advertise for - with only minor accommodation for disability - then you can not discriminate against them. If you're not doing that, then there are no other laws that I'm aware of that mean you have to hire someone you don't wish to. Can you detail which law you're referring to?


It does seem with these three examples of yours that you have something against anti-discrimination laws, as these would be the only laws that would prevent you from doing what you are suggesting. Is this the case, that you think people should be allowed to discriminate against race, against sex, against religion, etc?

 

[TheVat]

These examples of yours would appear to have nothing to do with the above.

But, but, they are forcing my son to become a daughter!!

 

[TheVat]

In the US, if you open for business, you do take on legal duties, and one of those is not to be discriminatory. This is your duty if you wish to benefit from trading with the public. It's a trade-off, so to speak: you benefit from being able to trade with the public, so you are required not to be discriminatory.

Never thought I'd see someone try to paint the Commerce Clause as totalitarian. Especially since one is under no compulsion to start a business where one would have to serve people they don't like. If you don't want to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple, then you are free to not bake wedding cakes. Or just bake generic cakes and let people put their own couple figurines on top. Or just bake them as a hobby and sell them to your cis-het friends. But stopping insulting and prejudicial mistreatment of people is hardly a totalitarian act. He's confusing basic social contracts (my right to swing my arm...) with extreme authoritarianism.

 

[Sarkus]

Drugs made illegal because a few can't handle them. Guns restricted because a few misuse them.

Making certain drugs illegal or restricting access to guns isn’t about totalitarian control, rather it’s about balancing individual freedoms with public safety. Laws like these reflect collective democratic choices: society decides, through its representatives, that preventing harm to others or the community justifies some limits on individual actions. That’s very different from totalitarianism, which seeks to control all aspects of people’s lives, not just to manage real risks. Heck, there is even a push to decriminalise some recreational drugs. Some places, such as California, have actually legalised cannabis, for example. Hardly totalitarian.
But maybe you're saying that heroin users, and dealers, should be free to carry on doing what they're doing? You're happy for people to get rich on the misery of others, then? You want people to buy whatever guns they want, even if they're mentally ill, perhaps? Just curious.

Laws allowing gender reassignment surgery for minors.

As others have pointed out, the idea of laws "allowing" - i.e. not banning, not forcing, but simply allowing - is hardly an example of totalitarianism.

Laws or judges telling parents how to raise and educate their children.

The only laws are those that protect the child from neglect or harm, and the requirement to attend school. Again, if you think otherwise, please share the detail of these laws. Otherwise there is no law that tells a parent how to raise their child. Similarly, no judge tells a parent other than where it is required to prevent harm or neglect of the child.
So what "totalitarian" laws are you referring to???

Tax laws that favor the rich.

This isn't an example of a government trending toward totalitarian. They're just right-wing tax policies, not unwarranted intrusion. You would be better arguing that the idea of tax itself is totalitarian, but even that would be a struggle.

 

[Sarkus]

He's confusing basic social contracts (my right to swing my arm...) with extreme authoritarianism.

Indeed. I mean, there are zero laws that stop someone from actually being a bigot, if that's what they are. The law cannot and does not regulate private thoughts or personal attitudes, no matter how distasteful to others they might be, but it does intervene when those thoughts translate into conduct that infringes upon another person's rights, especially in areas such as housing, employment, or public services.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

A bit confused. How is a law allowing something totalitarian?

You are hung up on the definition of words. It is evil, whatever you call it.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Never thought I'd see someone try to paint the Commerce Clause as totalitarian. Especially since one is under no compulsion to start a business where one would have to serve people they don't like. If you don't want to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple, then you are free to not bake wedding cakes. Or just bake generic cakes and let people put their own couple figurines on top. Or just bake them as a hobby and sell them to your cis-het friends. But stopping insulting and prejudicial mistreatment of people is hardly a totalitarian act. He's confusing basic social contracts (my right to swing my arm...) with extreme authoritarianism.

Again you are confusing the issue, just to validate your own desire to force people into a mold of your own making. The issue is not cakes. It is personal freedom of association, something you apparently do not understand.

 

[exchemist]

That's just the standard definition. It's also a catchall term for government intrusion where it shouldn't be. You can use any words you want, it is still restriction, compulsion, and perversion by government of all stripes..

Well no, you can't just use words that mean something quite different.

"Totalitarian" means something specific. It is emphatically not a catch-all term for any form of government intrusion that you personally dislike.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Well no, you can't just use words that mean something quite different.

"Totalitarian" means something specific. It is emphatically not a catch-all term for any form of government intrusion that you personally dislike.

Again, you are hung up on the definition of a single word, rather than understanding wha I wrote and the implications it has if it continues in this vein.