Gay community takes care of hateful bakers.

[Terrie]

Sundaymorning, congrats. You're completely clueless about US law.

[formergothardite]

I want you to imagine you have a choice. You can take a bus that is going to most likely benefit you and society and make people's lives safer, there is a tiny, tiny risk that something bad might happen. Or you can take a car. If you are born one sort of person your car will pretty much automatically going to be able to go anywhere and you are going to be safe. If you are not born this one type of person, there is a high chance that you will be shoved off the road, not allowed to drive at all and they will take your car. So which is better option for society? The bus or the car?

That is what it is like in America. With these laws there is a small chance they might be used for bad(but like with the one story with the lesbian and the morality clause, this happens with straight people too and the answer is marriage equality, not removing equality), but without them there is a HUGE chance in some parts of the country that there will be much harm done.

[Firiel]

I'm sorry, but you really don't understand what I'm trying to say. Maybe because I can't describe it in English so well, I don't know.

Ok, I try again. So yes, I think the purpose of any anti-discrimination law, whether it's for non-whites, gays, women, or any other minority is a great one and society will benefit.

But, and that is why I'm against such laws in first place, is because a government, which has the power to pass such a good law like a discrimination law also has the power to pass really bad laws which harm people greatly. So I'd rather don't have any laws which regulate peoples behaviour at all, than to being exposed to the huge risk of having some policitians which will force some awful laws at me.

I try to make an example: Imagine having to sit in a bus, which can drive you to great places, but also can drive you into the ocean where you will die painfully. It all depends on the driver, which you can't really chose. Some drivers are great people, but others are really racist or/and homophobic and many hate women. You do have one vote to elect the driver, but there are many other, sometimes not very clever, people with you in the bus, so your single vote doesn't count as much. All you can hope is that the new driver isn't some lunatic who will drive you into ruin or abandon you somewhere in the desert cause he found out that you are gay/black/white/ whatever he doesn't like.

The other option is that every single person gets her or his own car. So everyone can decide where they want to drive, and they aren't at the mercy of some crazy bus driver aka politician. Sure, some people will voluntarily drive into the ocean, and some places to drive to might be banned for you. But you would still have many other great options to drive to, and you wouldn't have to fear that someone will force you into a bus which will drive you into the ocean.

I don't know about you, but I would definately chose the car option.

SundayMorning, I get where you are coming from, though I don't necessarily agree. I have a question (EDIT: a lot of questions, actually!)-- at what point do you think laws are needed? Do you think we should live in anarchy? Do you support some laws (like laws against murder)? How do you judge whether a law is needed or indicates inappropriate government involvement? What purpose does the government serve if it cannot exercise any power/control over the citizens? Or are you anti-government?

[Sundaymorning]

I want you to imagine you have a choice. You can take a bus that is going to most likely benefit you and society and make people's lives safer, there is a tiny, tiny risk that something bad might happen. Or you can take a car. If you are born one sort of person your car will pretty much automatically going to be able to go anywhere and you are going to be safe. If you are not born this one type of person, there is a high chance that you will be shoved off the road, not allowed to drive at all and they will take your car. So which is better option for society? The bus or the car?

That is what it is like in America. With these laws there is a small chance they might be used for bad(but like with the one story with the lesbian and the morality clause, this happens with straight people too and the answer is marriage equality, not removing equality), but without them there is a HUGE chance in some parts of the country that there will be much harm done.

Well, I'm really glad for you that you seem to like government, so it implies it hasn't done too much harm to you. I am absolutely convinced that government in this form with all the power it has, can and will abuse it and that doesn't make anybodys life safer or better.

This is pretty universal, I'm not trying to single out the US, but just ask the millions of people and their families who have been killed or incarcerated in wars, most recently the "war on terror", the "war on drugs" and other highly harmful and counterproduktive government actions. Or let's talk about how the food industry and highly unhealthy products like corn syrup are greatly subsidized, all while government can and does forbid people to grow vegetables in their own front yard! The thing with corporate welfare, crony capitalism and corporatocrazy. Let's talk about how gays are still discriminated in a lot of places, because of government, not despise it. And the US is doing great compared to other countries where you will just get killed by government cause you are gay.

Fact is, and just look at the last few decades of history, if anyone will take away your car or bump you off the road, most likely, it will be government itself.

A few good laws don't make up 5% of the other harmful stuff the states does. In all countries. The solution would be to heavily limit the influence that government has on the lives of people.

And about what you said about this "morality clause" and marriage. Why the hell should someone have to get married in order to be able to live together with anyone they want?? It's simply none of the governments business with who you live together!!

But civil marriage is a very good example to show my stance towards all of this laws.

Am I for gay marriage? Of course. But at the same time, I don't think there should be a thing like civil marriage at all. It's none of the governments business with who you share your life, and everyone, married or not, should get treated equally by the government. If you want to change your name, call yourself married, get married in an religious ceremony then go for it. You don't need government for that. And if you wanna give anybody a special legal status in your life (hospital visitation rights, financial coverage and everything else) you can do it with a contract.

But as long as countries have a thing like civil marriage, and people have to get married in order to obtain a certain legal status in their partners life, it might as well be open for anyone, not just straight people.

[Firiel]

Sundaymorning, I hope you will answer some of the questions I asked. Reading back, I realized that a couple of them sounded (at least borderline) snarky, but I wanted to tell you they aren't. Specifically, asking if you thought there should be laws against murder or if you are anti-government. Neither of those were meant as insults, and I'm curious as to your point of view.

Essentially, I'm curious as to what guidelines you use in determining which laws the government should make and enforce (assuming you are in favor of the existence of government in general).

[Sundaymorning]

SundayMorning, I get where you are coming from, though I don't necessarily agree. I have a question (EDIT: a lot of questions, actually!)-- at what point do you think laws are needed? Do you think we should live in anarchy? Do you support some laws (like laws against murder)? How do you judge whether a law is needed or indicates inappropriate government involvement? What purpose does the government serve if it cannot exercise any power/control over the citizens? Or are you anti-government?

I try to answer your questions. They are very good and important ones, but many of them aren't easy to answer. I myself think a lot about these issues, and in some cases, I'm still not sure what would be the best course of action.

1. Do I think laws are needed? Unfortunately, I think some laws are needed, if you think about it realistically.

2. Should we live in an anachry? An anarchy would be my dream, but sadly, I don't think that is very realistic. I fear that in an anarchy, fist law would take over, where certain groups of people would just take away the freedom from other people.

3. Do you support some laws? Yes, I do support some laws. The main law is: you don't violate the non-aggression principle. Which means you don't harm other peoples health, body, life or their personal property. So yes, I do support laws against murder.

4. How do you judge whether a law is needed? Now, that's a very important but also hard question to answer. In general, I would say, a law is needed if it prohibits people from violating the non-aggression principle, and might punish those who did violate it.

5. What purpose should government serve? Well, the thing with government is, that as soon is has power, it will most likely abuse it in some way. But on the other hand, it is needed to some extent. I think the main role of government should be to provide a fair! judical system which ensures that the few laws you really need will be enforced. And government should provide a good and sensible external security. And no, that doesn't include attacking countries which haven't attacked them or any other kind of "preventive" warfare. The only time the military should get active is when the country is truly attacked by some other force. Otherwise, government just should leave people alone. People should have as much freedom as possible in any way.

6. Am I anti-government? I am definitely anti-government the way governments in all countries of the world are operating now. Some are much, much better than others, no doubt about that. But ultimately, I think people would be better off without government meddling in their lives.

The questions I'm not quite sure about what would be best.

1. What about children or people who are disabled or ill? To what extent should government protect them if they are mistreated? Here on free jinger many families are discussed who make their childrens life living hell. And there are also a lot of other families which are even worse.

I think there government has a certain responsibility to intervene if someone, who can't leave or defend himself, is put into danger. That I'm sure of. The question if where is the threshold? Should, for example, government be able to take the children away from people like PP, the Shraders, or is it still bearable to let children be exposed to such irresponsible parents?

2. What about the extent government should protect people from others harming them?

Should there be such a thing like the FDA? I think people who willingly want to harm themselves and take drugs should be free to do so. But what about people who just want to buy safe foods and meds? Or safe cars? Should there be a government who has to make sure that only harmless foods and medical drugs are sold? Cause the thing is: if some people are in charge deciding what kind of goods can be sold and bought, the first thing that will be bought are they themselves. I think this could be solved better with some private firms who could test those goods and then determine if they are safe. Obviously, if there are different companies and cooperations who will do that, there is some kind of concurrence and they can't be corrupted that easily like a single government agency.

Also, the thing with gun control. The right to have a gun vs the danger that you will harm someone else with it. That is also a very difficult question to answer. Especially since people who really want will always get around such laws, no matter how hard you try to enforce them.

And what's also very important: just because I don't think a central government should enforce many laws on people or dictate them how they should live and behave, doesn't mean that I don't have any moral concept. For example, do I think adultery is horrible? Yes, most definately. But do I think it should be prohibited by law (as its the case in some US states and many other countries)? No, I don't think so.

[Firiel]

I try to answer your questions. They are very good and important ones, but many of them aren't easy to answer. I myself think a lot about these issues, and in some cases, I'm still not sure what would be the best course of action.

1. Do I think laws are needed? Unfortunately, I think some laws are needed, if you think about it realistically.

2. Should we live in an anachry? An anarchy would be my dream, but sadly, I don't think that is very realistic. I fear that in an anarchy, fist law would take over, where certain groups of people would just take away the freedom from other people.

3. Do you support some laws? Yes, I do support some laws. The main law is: you don't violate the non-aggression principle. Which means you don't harm other peoples health, body, life or their personal property. So yes, I do support laws against murder.

4. How do you judge whether a law is needed? Now, that's a very important but also hard question to answer. In general, I would say, a law is needed if it prohibits people from violating the non-aggression principle, and might punish those who did violate it.

5. What purpose should government serve? Well, the thing with government is, that as soon is has power, it will most likely abuse it in some way. But on the other hand, it is needed to some extent. I think the main role of government should be to provide a fair! judical system which ensures that the few laws you really need will be enforced. And government should provide a good and sensible external security. And no, that doesn't include attacking countries which haven't attacked them or any other kind of "preventive" warfare. The only time the military should get active is when the country is truly attacked by some other force. Otherwise, government just should leave people alone. People should have as much freedom as possible in any way.

6. Am I anti-government? I am definitely anti-government the way governments in all countries of the world are operating now. Some are much, much better than others, no doubt about that. But ultimately, I think people would be better off without government meddling in their lives.

The questions I'm not quite sure about what would be best.

1. What about children or people who are disabled or ill? To what extent should government protect them if they are mistreated? Here on free jinger many families are discussed who make their childrens life living hell. And there are also a lot of other families which are even worse.

I think there government has a certain responsibility to intervene if someone, who can't leave or defend himself, is put into danger. That I'm sure of. The question if where is the threshold? Should, for example, government be able to take the children away from people like PP, the Shraders, or is it still bearable to let children be exposed to such irresponsible parents?

2. What about the extent government should protect people from others harming them?

Should there be such a thing like the FDA? I think people who willingly want to harm themselves and take drugs should be free to do so. But what about people who just want to buy safe foods and meds? Or safe cars? Should there be a government who has to make sure that only harmless foods and medical drugs are sold? Cause the thing is: if some people are in charge deciding what kind of goods can be sold and bought, the first thing that will be bought are they themselves. I think this could be solved better with some private firms who could test those goods and then determine if they are safe. Obviously, if there are different companies and cooperations who will do that, there is some kind of concurrence and they can't be corrupted that easily like a single government agency.

Also, the thing with gun control. The right to have a gun vs the danger that you will harm someone else with it. That is also a very difficult question to answer. Especially since people who really want will always get around such laws, no matter how hard you try to enforce them.

And what's also very important: just because I don't think a central government should enforce many laws on people or dictate them how they should live and behave, doesn't mean that I don't have any moral concept. For example, do I think adultery is horrible? Yes, most definately. But do I think it should be prohibited by law (as its the case in some US states and many other countries)? No, I don't think so.

Thanks, that's very interesting!

Do you support things like taxes or social support systems? Those don't inhibit the way an individual is allowed to act, so I'm wondering if you see those laws differently.

[Sundaymorning]

Sundaymorning, I hope you will answer some of the questions I asked. Reading back, I realized that a couple of them sounded (at least borderline) snarky, but I wanted to tell you they aren't. Specifically, asking if you thought there should be laws against murder or if you are anti-government. Neither of those were meant as insults, and I'm curious as to your point of view.

Essentially, I'm curious as to what guidelines you use in determining which laws the government should make and enforce (assuming you are in favor of the existence of government in general).

I just tried answering your questions. I'm sorry, it takes quite a while for me to write these answers in a, for me, foreign language, and I also lead quite a busy life, so I don't always have time to answer immediately. But I always enjoy having a (civil) discussion with people and it's always intersting to read other view points.

[Firiel]

I just tried answering your questions. I'm sorry, it takes quite a while for me to write these answers in a, for me, foreign language, and I also lead quite a busy life, so I don't always have time to answer immediately. But I always enjoy having a (civil) discussion with people and it's always intersting to read other view points.

Oh, it's okay-- I totally understand. I just didn't want you to be dissuaded if my questions sounded snarky. I appreciate the time you put into the response. :)

[formergothardite]

Well, I'm really glad for you that you seem to like government, so it implies it hasn't done too much harm to you. I am absolutely convinced that government in this form with all the power it has, can and will abuse it and that doesn't make anybodys life safer or better.

This is pretty universal, I'm not trying to single out the US, but just ask the millions of people and their families who have been killed or incarcerated in wars, most recently the "war on terror", the "war on drugs" and other highly harmful and counterproduktive government actions. Or let's talk about how the food industry and highly unhealthy products like corn syrup are greatly subsidized, all while government can and does forbid people to grow vegetables in their own front yard! The thing with corporate welfare, crony capitalism and corporatocrazy. Let's talk about how gays are still discriminated in a lot of places, because of government, not despise it. And the US is doing great compared to other countries where you will just get killed by government cause you are gay.

Fact is, and just look at the last few decades of history, if anyone will take away your car or bump you off the road, most likely, it will be government itself.

A few good laws don't make up 5% of the other harmful stuff the states does. In all countries. The solution would be to heavily limit the influence that government has on the lives of people.

And about what you said about this "morality clause" and marriage. Why the hell should someone have to get married in order to be able to live together with anyone they want?? It's simply none of the governments business with who you live together!!

But civil marriage is a very good example to show my stance towards all of this laws.

Am I for gay marriage? Of course. But at the same time, I don't think there should be a thing like civil marriage at all. It's none of the governments business with who you share your life, and everyone, married or not, should get treated equally by the government. If you want to change your name, call yourself married, get married in an religious ceremony then go for it. You don't need government for that. And if you wanna give anybody a special legal status in your life (hospital visitation rights, financial coverage and everything else) you can do it with a contract.

But as long as countries have a thing like civil marriage, and people have to get married in order to obtain a certain legal status in their partners life, it might as well be open for anyone, not just straight people.

So let me get this right, your solution for my gay friend who is still afraid that she will lose her job if she goes public with that information and for the Muslim people I know who get hateful looks wherever they go, is to give the stores and businesses the legal right to fire them and ban them from shopping anywhere? Because that is what would happen if you took away the laws on equality.

The government does all sorts of things I don't agree with, but none of that is related to passing laws to make it illegal for public businesses to ban people based on the color of their skin, their religious beliefs or their sexuality.

[FoxyMoxie]

Exactly! This story has made me livid at the LGBTQ folks who are raising & donating money. How dare they give money to these assholes? The LGBTQ community center where we use to live has long been a haven for gay teens who have been kicked out of their homes. Due to lack of funds they are always on the verge of having to shut down & I'm sure this situation is shared by centers all across the country on a daily basis. Rather than use their money to keep something good & positive running, these people are going to donate money to a set of outright bigots who will end up not having any consequences for their hatefulness? This makes me sick.

Except that LGBTQ people aren't a monolith. The person raising the money (or heading the campaign at least) campaigns for marriage equality and believes that what he's doing is a positive step and a loving response. It's his right as a gay person to do that. It's not an 'LGBTQ community centre for the right kind of LGBTQ people only', but for all LGBTQ people. While I don't agree with the fundraising totally, he has every right to do it.

LGBTQ people of faith (all faiths) get the short straw from both their religious communities and the LGBTQ community, and it stinks. Religious LGBTQ people exist and have just as much right to LGBTQ rights and community as secular LGBTQ people.

[FoxyMoxie]

Sundaymorning - your kind of libertarianism is only any good to people who already have social power (often termed 'privilege'). It's no good for people on the receiving end of hate speech or institutionalised discrimination or who otherwise need protecting by the government. Anti-discrimination law literally saves lives. Just because you're lucky enough not to need it doesn't mean everyone is in that position.

I live in the UK and honestly most of Western Europe has pretty good laws. Like, there are some crappy ones and we all like to complain about the government, but mostly the government does work for the people's benefit. The 'omg the government is all out to get you' is just fearmongering conspiracy theorist nonsense. Are you going to recommend me some colloidal silver next? :lol:

The US needs MORE government intervention, not less.

[Sundaymorning]

Thanks, that's very interesting!

Do you support things like taxes or social support systems? Those don't inhibit the way an individual is allowed to act, so I'm wondering if you see those laws differently.

Do I support taxes? Well, if you want a limited government, you also have to come up with the funds. So yes, I do support taxes. But, fair ones. So no to the unfair tax system most countries have, where certain kinds of people and companies pay next to nothing (hello, corporate welfare!), and others have to pay way too much.

And I also don't support how government uses taxes to terrorize people. Some people have lost their home cause they missed a single payment of taxes and that kind of stuff.

Also, nowdays, taxes are mostly used for either harmful or simply useless stuff. The one with the most influence in government gets the most tax money. Talk about corporate welfare, subsidies, a prison system which costs soo much money and incarcerates people who should never be in prison in first place, useless wars and so on. If government would only spend money on the really necessary stuff, taxes for everyone would be much lower and people could use their money in a much better way.

Do I support a social support system?

Well, in first place, I do support that people get the freedom to care for themselves. Or to quote Henry Browne: "Suppose the federal government weren't taxing your income, squandering your retirement money, adding regulatory costs to everything you buy and forcing your employer to spend money on bureaucratic mandates instead of you. How well off would you be?"

This is also true for poor people (punkrocklibertarians.com/many-ways-state-taxes-poor). Often, and this sounds crazy but it's sadly true, stupid bureaucratic laws even prevent other people to help those in need (for example npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/10/22/357846415/more-cities-are-making-it-illegal-to-hand-out-food-to-the-homeless). How evil is that?? But that's government for you. A good deed every day.

Also, stupid laws and structures often prevent people from getting out of poverty themselves. And not to forget the people who lost everything because of irresponsible government programs and agencies like Freddie Mac and Fannie May.

To the social support systems which exist now in most western countries: I don't think they work very well. Often, much money is lost on bureaucratic laws and rules, on administration and such things. Then, the money that goes to the people doesn't always go to the right person. People who shouldn't benefit get money, while others, who would deserve it, don't. It also sets the wrong incentives for some people.

I also think that the best social support system is not the government but private organisations ran by motivated people and volunteers. And yes, there are lots of decent people who are willing to volunteer and help those in need. Those private programs are generally much more efficient than goverment agencies.

I guess, for those who really can't find help otherwise, I would be ok with some sort of limited social support system. One that helps people efficiently and fairly who truly can't help themselves.

[Sundaymorning]

Sundaymorning - your kind of libertarianism is only any good to people who already have social power (often termed 'privilege'). It's no good for people on the receiving end of hate speech or institutionalised discrimination or who otherwise need protecting by the government. Anti-discrimination law literally saves lives. Just because you're lucky enough not to need it doesn't mean everyone is in that position.

I live in the UK and honestly most of Western Europe has pretty good laws. Like, there are some crappy ones and we all like to complain about the government, but mostly the government does work for the people's benefit. The 'omg the government is all out to get you' is just fearmongering conspiracy theorist nonsense. Are you going to recommend me some colloidal silver next? :lol:

The US needs MORE government intervention, not less.

Yeah, good luck with Ukip and the new policies they want to enforce on the people. I wonder what you will say about the good government if one day, they get the political power. And that is not so unrealistic. Same goes for France and the front national. Frances economy is also in shambles thanks to great government regulations and interventions.

And no, I don't recommend collodial silver. I'm just not under the spell that somehow convinces people that government is awesome and personal freedom and responsibility is bad.

[FoxyMoxie]

Yeah, good luck with Ukip and the new policies they want to enforce on the people. I wonder what you will say about the good government if one day, they get the political power. And that is not so unrealistic. Same goes for France and the front national. Frances economy is also in shambles thanks to great government regulations and interventions.

And no, I don't recommend collodial silver. I'm just not under the spell that somehow convinces people that government is awesome and personal freedom and responsibility is bad.

OK so well done for ignoring the main thrust of my post. What about those on the receiving end of discrimination and hate crime? Are they supposed to be glad people have the right to harm them? Of course not. Certain groups within society are vulnerable, and therefore need protection. The government protecting those groups does not remove personal freedom and responsibility. It just also brings in a level of collective responsibility.

Obviously not everything is perfect, but I said that in my post. There are some crappy laws. But I am glad I live in a country where you can't be fired for being gay or black or a woman, and that vulnerable groups are protected (though obviously it needs to go further still). That IS a good part of the government. And yes, UKIP are terrible but at the moment they're only as powerful as the Green Party in the UK! Like obviously there's plenty wrong with the government but the libertarian argument is really shitty and only harms vulnerable people. I'm definitely glad to give up some 'personal freedom' if it means I can't use hate speech against someone, because that hate speech weakens and harms society as a whole and vulnerable groups.

[Sundaymorning]

OK so well done for ignoring the main thrust of my post. What about those on the receiving end of discrimination and hate crime? Are they supposed to be glad people have the right to harm them? Of course not. Certain groups within society are vulnerable, and therefore need protection. The government protecting those groups does not remove personal freedom and responsibility. It just also brings in a level of collective responsibility.

Obviously not everything is perfect, but I said that in my post. There are some crappy laws. But I am glad I live in a country where you can't be fired for being gay or black or a woman, and that vulnerable groups are protected (though obviously it needs to go further still). That IS a good part of the government. And yes, UKIP are terrible but at the moment they're only as powerful as the Green Party in the UK! Like obviously there's plenty wrong with the government but the libertarian argument is really shitty and only harms vulnerable people. I'm definitely glad to give up some 'personal freedom' if it means I can't use hate speech against someone, because that hate speech weakens and harms society as a whole and vulnerable groups.

Ok, look, I do understand what you are trying to say. And I can also understand some of the reasons you think such laws are necessary.

First of all, harming the body or the life of people is an assault against their propriety. And that should be illegal and prosecuted. Most Libertarian schools agree on that.

However, harming somebody not the same as just saying: I'm sorry, but I don't want to do any business with you.

About other kinds of discrimination: the problem is, like I wrote many times before, that if the government has the right to impose certains laws about how people should behave on the citizens, it will abuse the power. So despite that some people might profit a bit from certain anti-discrimination laws, taken as a whole one, everybody is much worse off if the government has too much power. You think that governmental force is good and things can't change very quickly? I think you are quite naive. My family, for example, has suffered hugely from abusive government power. Some were killed. Other incarcarated. I couldn't visit some of my relatives for a long time cause it wasn't possible for me to travel into the country. That is what you get, if you give govermnent too much power in the long run. Not some nice anti-discrimination laws.

And about those anit-discrimination laws: do you honestly think they help all that much? Sure, people from minorities can't get thrown out from a restaurant anymore. Or get fired because they are black. But guess what, if they don't like you, they can just fire you for another reason. Or never even employ you. And forget that promotion you're hoping for. If there is a long line in front of the club, they only let the people they like in anyway. Many non-whites complain how they are often discriminated at clubs, and I fully believe them, but they can't prove it enough to be able to sue.

Honestly, I, as a lesbian, feel much more comfortable if I know that I'm truly welcome at a store or anyplace really, and they are doing business with me, or employing me because they want to. Not because they are forced by law.

I don't think the limited benefit of those laws is worth it for anybody! to give governments so much power over the life of people they can abuse for other things.

[formergothardite]

You have admitted that the laws not allowing businesses to discriminate against people are awesome. I asked how these laws had been a huge disadvantage to society and how it had caused huge damage to society and you not only could not say how it damaged society you said:

I'm not saying at all, that this particular law was harmful for society!

So if this law wasn't harmful to society and is awesome, why is it not the same with the law saying you can't discriminate against someone because of their sexuality? I live in the South and my dad was alive during the time these laws were being passed and he is sure that if they had not been passed the South would be a racists today as it was back then. The laws helped change how society viewed black people. So why wouldn't the law do the same for gay people?

[Grimalkin]

martin Luther King realized that laws can force equality, but not make people like it. There needed to be a change of people's mindsets. i think the laws might not be perfectly enforcable, but perhaps a beginning to the change of a mindset. The laws for civil rights came before people accepted racism is wrong. I realize there is still racism but things are better. Some people will break the laws no matter what, most people want to uphold the law. I also think that laws against discrimination protect the people who do not discriminate.

[Grimalkin]

You have admitted that the laws not allowing businesses to discriminate against people are awesome. I asked how these laws had been a huge disadvantage to society and how it had caused huge damage to society and you not only could not say how it damaged society you said:

So if this law wasn't harmful to society and is awesome, why is it not the same with the law saying you can't discriminate against someone because of their sexuality? I live in the South and my dad was alive during the time these laws were being passed and he is sure that if they had not been passed the South would be a racists today as it was back then. The laws helped change how society viewed black people. So why wouldn't the law do the same for gay people?

Why care about gay people if your not gay? As long as they are not being physically harmed why do they matter right? Why give gay people the right to flourish, existing is good enough for them. It's the minimum concept of morality.

[Sundaymorning]

You have admitted that the laws not allowing businesses to discriminate against people are awesome. I asked how these laws had been a huge disadvantage to society and how it had caused huge damage to society and you not only could not say how it damaged society you said:

So if this law wasn't harmful to society and is awesome, why is it not the same with the law saying you can't discriminate against someone because of their sexuality? I live in the South and my dad was alive during the time these laws were being passed and he is sure that if they had not been passed the South would be a racists today as it was back then. The laws helped change how society viewed black people. So why wouldn't the law do the same for gay people?

Look, I tried to explain to you a lot of times now that while one particular law might be helpful to society, too much governmental power as a whole one doesn't. If they have the power to pass a good law, they can also pass a really bad one. Do you realize that the reason that the South was in this horrible place is because of the government itself??

It's like giving a person a shotgun. And hoping he/she will only shoot the bad guys. Unfortunately, that person ends up shooting mostly you instead of the bad guys. Now, in this situation, I'd suggest to take the gun out of this persons hands, since it's not very useful to you, but instead harming you. The same goes with government power in peoples lifes. While it might help them sometimes, most of the time, it doesn't.

Another thing, what would you think or fear would happen without those anti-discrimination laws? I can't really estimate how things would be now in the South. But if they are truly this racist, then I fear things will never change, even if you enforce plenty of laws, people will stay this way. The culture has to change, but you can't do that with laws, but with setting a good example and showing people that racism is stupid.

I can tell you, I live in a conservative country, I grew up in a small, conservative village and now also live in a pretty conservative area. And we don't have any laws that prevent people from discriminating against others because of their sexuality. But, regardless of that, I've never ever had any problems in stores or restaurants. Even when I was with my girlfriend. Other gay friends of mine could tell you the same. The only time I can recall somebody had problems was when this guy was french-kissing his boyfriend in a restaurant, and the waiter took offense. You know what happend? People went to complain to the manager. And the waiter later came to apologize with his tail between his legs. Companies actually are adversiting themselves as gay-friendly when they are searching for new employees.

With government however, I have plenty of problems. I can't legally adopt a child. I can't get married, only civil partnership which doesn't cover everything. Heck, I even can't fill out my tax form right, since it doesn't even have a option to say in a civil partnership, yet, I get punished if I don't fill it out correctly (I'm sadly not joking).

I'm pretty sure people would be just fine if government would leave them alone. If you truly live in a place where many people are that racist or homophobic that they openly have to show it, I don't think government laws can help you much.

I trust individual people more than I trust the government. With individuals, or even homophobic companies, even if they are morons, you can deal. But with the government, you are just screwed.

[Sundaymorning]

martin Luther King realized that laws can force equality, but not make people like it. There needed to be a change of people's mindsets. i think the laws might not be perfectly enforcable, but perhaps a beginning to the change of a mindset. The laws for civil rights came before people accepted racism is wrong. I realize there is still racism but things are better. Some people will break the laws no matter what, most people want to uphold the law. I also think that laws against discrimination protect the people who do not discriminate.

I think that is the best argument I've read in this discussion. I agree that certain laws can support to progress some things sometimes. There, you certainly have a point. But we always have to keep in mind that pressure always causes counter-pressure. So I however still think, you could reach the goals without governmental force. And without the danger that government will abuse the power it has over people.

Also, it's quite funny, I've experienced that many people, if you tell them that you don't really believe in government, have the same reaction that many firm believers have if you tell them that you are an atheist or an agnostic.

They automatically assume that you must be horrible, selfish and evil. Someone who doesn't have any morals and who can't possibly be a decent and compassionate person. I can assure all of you, that is not the case. I just don't believe in much government involvement.

[Grimalkin]

I think that is the best argument I've read in this discussion. I agree that certain laws can support to progress some things sometimes. There, you certainly have a point. But we always have to keep in mind that pressure always causes counter-pressure. So I however still think, you could reach the goals without governmental force. And without the danger that government will abuse the power it has over people.

Also, it's quite funny, I've experienced that many people, if you tell them that you don't really believe in government, have the same reaction that many firm believers have if you tell them that you are an atheist or an agnostic.

They automatically assume that you must be horrible, selfish and evil. Someone who doesn't have any morals and who can't possibly be a decent and compassionate person. I can assure all of you, that is not the case. I just don't believe in much government involvement.

I don't think being against government means you don't have morals and values, but perhaps a naive view on the world. Without government how would you prevent somebody coming in and forming a dictatorship, and other groups rising up to compete and get into power. You think governments are more likely to abuse power than people, or groups of people?

[Sundaymorning]

I don't think being against government means you don't have morals and values, but perhaps a naive view on the world. Without government how would you prevent somebody coming in and forming a dictatorship, and other groups rising up to compete and get into power. You think governments are more likely to abuse power than people, or groups of people?

I've already explained in a post in this topic that the only law I really believe in is the non-aggression principle. Which says you should leave people alone and don't harm their health, life, property and such. In order to enforce that, you would need a very limited government. Same goes with the military, in order to stop other countries to attack you, you might need a miliary. But a limited one, no "prevention" wars and such.

I think if you could just enforce the non-aggression principle, and only that, it would prevent people from forming a dictatorship, groups rising to get into power over other people and such. It would also prohibit any types of hate crimes against minorities, since harming another person is strictly forbidden.

You are of course entitled to have your opinion about my opinions. But I myself really think that it's really naive to believe that much government force is good. You might live in a nice place and don't have any troubles with government, but many people do. Some, as I, have little problems, like my government is discriminating against me cause I'm gay. In other countries, they might have those anti-discrimination laws, but at the same time, they are jailing people (especially minorities) cause they smoked a joint, and are bombing million others into ruin and death in their quest to lead a "war against terror".

[Grimalkin]

I've already explained in a post in this topic that the only law I really believe in is the non-aggression principle. Which says you should leave people alone and don't harm their health, life, property and such. In order to enforce that, you would need a very limited government. Same goes with the military, in order to stop other countries to attack you, you might need a miliary. But a limited one, no "prevention" wars and such.

I think if you could just enforce the non-aggression principle, and only that, it would prevent people from forming a dictatorship, groups rising to get into power over other people and such. It would also prohibit any types of hate crimes against minorities, since harming another person is strictly forbidden.

You are of course entitled to have your opinion about my opinions. But I myself really think that it's really naive to believe that much government force is good. You might live in a nice place and don't have any troubles with government, but many people do. Some, as I, have little problems, like my government is discriminating against me cause I'm gay. In other countries, they might have those anti-discrimination laws, but at the same time, they are jailing people (especially minorities) cause they smoked a joint, and are bombing million others into ruin and death in their quest to lead a "war against terror".

Ok touché!

I guess I have a hard time imagining a strong military/ police force without a strong government. I think it would need to be strong to prevent militant groups from rising up. So the minimum requirement for morality is to cause no harm. Do you think your life now would be easier or better? How?

Would there be laws to protect the rights of children? Can a child be excluded from a school because the teachers don't like the parents? Or because the kid is black? Could a parent decide not to educate a child and put them to work, even if it was a nice job?

[Sundaymorning]

Ok, so I already wrote a long post about some of these things today, here on this thread, cause another poster asked me some really good questions.

To be clear, there a lot of different issues I think about a lot, and where I'm not sure what would be the best course of action. I don't claim I have all the right answers. What I wrote about children in my other post:

1. What about children or people who are disabled or ill? To what extent should government protect them if they are mistreated? Here on free jinger many families are discussed who make their childrens life living hell. And there are also a lot of other families which are even worse.

I think there government has a certain responsibility to intervene if someone, who can't leave or defend himself, is put into danger. That I'm sure of. The question if where is the threshold? Should, for example, government be able to take the children away from people like PP, the Shraders, or is it still bearable to let children be exposed to such irresponsible parents?

Could a parent force a kid to work? Well, there are plenty of parents who do force their kids to work nowdays, just think of all these poor child-stars. And beauty pageants and what not. I don't think a parent should be able to force a child to work if the child didn't want to. A child is not the property of the parents! A child has the same rights to be left alone and unharmed as an adult has!

The thing with the school, if its a government school, then no. Government should treat all people equally, which it doesn't no now, by the way. If it's a private school, well, they can kick out a kid if they don't get along with the parents. But they can do that too in countries I know of which have anti-discrimination laws. Could they kick out a kid because it is black? Well, honestly, they could. But, it's not like they can't do it just because of some anti-discrimination laws. They would simply give another reason, and not flat-out say it's because he is black. Same thing actually with those bakers, if they just would have told the couple they were too busy with other cakes, nothing would have happend to them. Anti-discrimination laws basically punish people for being honest about how stupid and evil they really are. The clever ones just hide it and discriminate in ways which can't be proven so easily.

How would my life be better without a government which gets into peoples lifes?

Well, first of all, half of my family wouldn't have been killed or incarcerated. I would have been able to get to know my two grandmothers (grandfathers were killed by government) if I had been able to visit them, but that wasn't possible, thanks to government.

My life right now would be much better, cause I could adopt a child, I could just organize my legal status with my partner through some contracts that would fit our individual situation and get married at a church (our local church would marry us, but here you first need a civil marriage before you can get married at a church) instead of depending on a civil partnership which makes me a second-class citizen cause it isn't a marriage and doesn't cover certain things.

And that are just a few examples. I didn't even cover the whole thing with my tax money being spend on stupid things and organisations like the Catholic Church (which hates my gut since I'm a lesbian) and corporate welfare, the bureaucracy which harms my business and so on...

If government would just be limited into enforcing the non-aggression principle, defending the country against attacking military forces and maybe some very basic social security, I'm convinced that not many, if any, people would be truly worse off, but many would be able to lead a better and safer life.