Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
While the loud-crowd started up with their bullying of Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona earlier this week, I expressed a sentiment on Facebook that drew an unexpected number of “likes” plus a share:
Sorry Sulu. Your Facebook updates are a lot of fun, and nothing against your sexual preference but you’re wrong on this one. In fact, Arizona would be a great place for the silliness to finally stop.
There is: Nobody should force me to pour milk on my corn flakes when I happen to prefer orange juice and vodka on my corn flakes. And then there’s: Help me force this restaurant owner to let me walk into his restaurant and eat my corn flakes. Those are two different things. The first thing is freedom, the second thing is force. Two things. Different. In fact, opposites.
Time for the nonsense to end. You’re not championing choice and freedom anymore, when you’ve started to force other people to accept things they don’t want to.
The nonsense, we know now, did not end.
So now we’re left with several realizations that lead to a question. There aren’t too many stories to be offered up about gay people being refused service anywhere, so I don’t think we need to pretend this was about anybody’s “rights.” If we do force that understanding, then we would also have to understand, once and for all, that the gay-rights crusade lately has a cause wholly separate from what they’ve been claiming, and those who have been resisting it were completely correct from the very beginning: It’s about special rights and not equal-rights. Laundromats, bowling alleys, Karate studios, fast food restaurants, liquor stores and bars have always been able to display signs that say “We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone.” In Arizona, they don’t have that right. And, it seems the loud-crowd is opposed to any business having that right anywhere…where homosexuals are concerned.
That’s special-rights and not equal-rights. I can’t make a business serve me. I can’t take a business to court if it refuses to serve me. For straight people, the complaint is dismissed as quickly as it might ever have come up, with a jerk of the proprietor’s thumb toward the “refuse service” sign. For us, it still works that way. Or does it?
I guess that’s the question. Are we now at the point where it’s always good when a business gets sued? Or, is put at the “business end” of a court order of any kind…an injunction, a fine, a settlement, a subpoena. I’m worried about how automatically so many within the loud-crowd determined this must be a “bad bill,” having found out 1) it’s got something to do with gay people, 2) gay people don’t like it and 3) it offers PROTECTIONS to the BUSINESSES. Is it good when businesses get sued? Is it bad when they aren’t sued?
If that’s where we are, can we just drop the charade of wishing for the economy to get better?
High time that question got settled. If the answer is in the affirmative, then admitting it would save everyone a whole lot of energy and time.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Maybe Arizona should pass a bill that taxes businesses for “not not refusing to provide services that counter their religious beliefs.” That’s Constitutional.
- Severian | 02/27/2014 @ 07:19What happens when the product, a cake, photos, etc., being purchased under duress don’t come out so great? What if the cake sucks, the pictures are blurry or just not what the gay couple likes? Do they get to sue? And for what, money? That will satisfy the disappointment of the lost opportunity of enjoying the event? And how does such get proved…beyond the obvious and deliberate suckage that normally occurs from time to time without peoples sexual orientation being a factor but rather just plain incompetence and or neglect?
I mean, it’s human nature to not do a great job when forced into a business transaction versus an mutually equal agreed upon business arrangement. I know how’d I feel about being forced to do business with someone who I, for whatever reason, didn’t want to. “OK, I’ll bake ya’ a damn cake, here ya’ go, enjoy (this crap)!” “Oh, sorry, it sucked? Oh well. What’s that you want you money back, no freaking chance”.
Can’t wait for the inevitable showdown between a gay couple and a muslim business owner.
I saw where some gay friendly or owned businesses in Arizona were putting up signs saying – “We refuse to do business with legislators (who voted for the bill)”. The staggering hypocrisy is mind numbing.
- tim | 02/27/2014 @ 12:34Can’t wait for the inevitable showdown between a gay couple and a muslim business owner.
Oy. That’ll be a blast. And then we’ll have a whole bunch of me-too “conservatives” suddenly discovering the joys of fundamentalist Islam, because they’re the only ones legally allowed to stand up to the lavender mob.
Sigh.
And yes, since I live in a college town, I really have thought about “converting” to Islam, just to get a little fuckin’ peace in my day-to-day. The nose-ringed,dreadlocked cause-heads give you a wide berth if you walk around with a nametag that says “Hello, my name is Houssa bin Fartin al-Shabazz.”
- Severian | 02/27/2014 @ 12:41mkfreeberg: Nobody should force me to pour milk on my corn flakes …
http://livelikearepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/black-or-gay-people-at-lunch-counter.jpg
- Zachriel | 02/27/2014 @ 13:49Can’t wait for the inevitable showdown between a gay couple and a muslim business owner.
That’s already happened, but it was one woman in Canada and a Muslim barbershop. The question then became does her rights as a lesbian trump his rights as a Muslim or the other way around? We won’t know how this works in Canada since the issue was resolved quietly behind doors.
- Captain Midnight | 02/27/2014 @ 14:09Ah yes, the inevitable “gays equal blacks” civil rights argument. From presumably a white guy. (*Heavy sigh*) Who also, no doubt has absolutely no qualms about taking away the rights of us “radicals’ to keep and bear arms. And sucking the brains out of fully developed babies days, hours or even minutes away from “escaping” the mother’s womb to “punish” the mother for the rest of her life. No problem discriminating against those people, right?
Strange how all those blacks keep voting against gay marriage. You should do a better job of getting the word out regarding the comparison. Like go to black establishments, businesses, churches, etc. and have at it. Wait, what…not gonn’ happen? Why not? Why would that be?
And why haven’t I seen the pickets against the most oppressive religion towards the gays? Why not confront the muslims? Oh I forgot, they hate the Jews more than any liberal, socialist fucktard that breaths, so y’all have that in common. It trumps all. But you would never actually discriminate against a Jew…oh no…just boycott Israel.
- tim | 02/27/2014 @ 14:42tim: Ah yes, the inevitable “gays equal blacks” civil rights argument.
But you don’t say anywhere in your comment why it’s not a valid argument.
- Zachriel | 02/27/2014 @ 15:46Category error.
- Severian | 02/27/2014 @ 19:57“But you don’t say anywhere in your comment why it’s not a valid argument.”
Nowhere in your comment, which was nothing but a linked picture, does it explain why it IS a valid argument. Feel free.
For one though, the Supreme Court has never, that I know of, ruled that sexual preference qualifies under equal protection of the law.
And while your at it, instead of the typical liberal blog comment deflection of failing to address any of my other points, please do.
- tim | 02/28/2014 @ 10:52What about “No shoes, No shirt, No service.” My religious gender preference is no shoes or shirt.
- Open other end | 02/28/2014 @ 12:06tim: Nowhere in your comment, which was nothing but a linked picture, does it explain why it IS a valid argument.
The argument was clear, as you yourself said above. The original post said “force isn’t freedom”. Yet, force was used to end segregation. The situations are comparable, even to the very arguments raised by those opposed to equal access to public accommodations. Many people in the South had religious objections to race mixing.
tim: For one though, the Supreme Court has never, that I know of, ruled that sexual preference qualifies under equal protection of the law.
Romer v Evans
- Zachriel | 02/28/2014 @ 13:46It would seem that to be consistent, one would have to allow racial discrimination in public accommodations as well. Some libertarians have that view. That doesn’t mean they agree with discrimination.
“Lassie can stay at the Waldorf but Negroes can’t.”
- Zachriel | 02/28/2014 @ 13:51“The argument was clear, as you yourself said above.”
I did, where?
Anyways, I see how this goes with you…But I’ll proceed… Business owners are not discriminating against gay people all together, that is they are welcome to, and are customers of the establishments otherwise. Unlike not serving blacks completely.
They are simply deciding not to participate in a ceremony via providing of their labor for such things as wedding cakes, photos, etc., that is against their religious beliefs.
A far Romer v Evans, I don’t have the time today to totally read up, but it doesn’t seem to make your point. “The Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not pass the rational basis test, under the Equal Protection Clause.[2].
- tim | 02/28/2014 @ 14:47tim: Business owners are not discriminating against gay people all together, that is they are welcome to, and are customers of the establishments otherwise.
You mean it should be left up to the individual business? So should businesses be allowed to racially or religiously discriminate?
tim: They are simply deciding not to participate in a ceremony via providing of their labor for such things as wedding cakes, photos, etc., that is against their religious beliefs.
Sure, and some people think that mixing of the races is religiously proscribed. Should public employees have the same right to refuse service?
tim: A far Romer v Evans, I don’t have the time today to totally read up, but it doesn’t seem to make your point.
The majority ruled on an equal protection basis saying, “It is a fair, if not necessary, inference from the broad language of the amendment that it deprives gays and lesbians even of the protection of general laws and policies that prohibit arbitrary discrimination in governmental and private settings”
- Zachriel | 02/28/2014 @ 15:05Whew, gays vs. blacks vs. Christians vs. Muslims vs. Socialists…the list is endless today.
- P_Ang | 02/28/2014 @ 16:26I’m not sure where I read it, and I apologize if someone recognizes it from somewhere for not being able to quote the author from memory, but the best comparison I’ve seen so far is this: What happens when a Neo-Nazi decides to sue a Jewish Deli for refusing to serve the sides at his big Nazi Rally and Pork cook-off extravaganza and crystal smashing spectacular? Strangely, though I see no difference between the this and the bakery issues, I’m willing to bet the law is going to side with the Jewish owner every time. The Colorado and Oregon bakeries First Amendment rights were not so…sacred.
You mean it should be left up to the individual business?
Heh. Yeah, that’s just crazy talk.
Supposedly, this is a matter of right and wrong — it’s just plain wrong to discriminate. I’m sure among those who insist it should not be left up to the “individual business,” that the nanny-state should reign supreme, there would be widespread agreement with that. So maybe y’all can clear this up for my benefit:
If it is a matter of right and wrong, why should it not be left up to the individual business? In cases where the business is wise and good, there is no discrimination and so that is outside the scope of the subject. We are talking about the foolish and bad/wrong businesses, which left to their own devices, would discriminate; our debate is about whether a greater and wiser authority should force them into the correct behavior. Right? Well if that’s the issue, then what would the point be to that?
So that gay newlyweds can be afforded their constitutionally-guaranteed right to a crappy crummy wedding cake, probably laced with Ex-Lax, baked for them by a guy who didn’t want to bake it for them but was forced to? This is where I can’t quite grok.
- mkfreeberg | 02/28/2014 @ 20:33P_Ang: What happens when a Neo-Nazi decides to sue a Jewish Deli for refusing to serve the sides at his big Nazi Rally and Pork cook-off extravaganza and crystal smashing spectacular?
Political affiliation is not a protected class under U.S. federal law.
mkfreeberg: If it is a matter of right and wrong, why should it not be left up to the individual business?
That was the question raised by the Civil Rights Movement. From your comments, you seem to suggest you would agree with Barry Goldwater, and reject the Civil Rights Act guaranteeing equality in public accommodations. Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 03/01/2014 @ 07:11There is little-to-no potential enlightenment to be achieved from the exercise of strangers passing judgment on the moral standing of other strangers across the Internet. And notably, y’all didn’t answer the question.
If an individual or business is forced to do the “right thing” by statute, does that person or business become more scrupulous?
- mkfreeberg | 03/01/2014 @ 07:29mkfreeberg: And notably, y’all didn’t answer the question.
Z: You mean it should be left up to the individual business? So should businesses be allowed to racially or religiously discriminate?
mk: If it is a matter of right and wrong, why should it not be left up to the individual business?
You will noticed we posed a question. You suggested your position, but wouldn’t actually come out and say, so you answered with a question, then complained when we didn’t answer.
mkfreeberg: If it is a matter of right and wrong, why should it not be left up to the individual business?
There should be laws against racial, religious, and gender discrimination in public accommodations. The liberal argument is one of basic fairness and equality. The conservative argument is that it is socially unstable to allow discrimination.
Now perhaps you can answer. Should businesses be allowed to racially or religiously discriminate?
- Zachriel | 03/01/2014 @ 08:31You will noticed we posed a question. You suggested your position, but wouldn’t actually come out and say, so you answered with a question, then complained when we didn’t answer.
If there is no good answer that can be supplied in response to my question, then your question must be irrelevant. Unless this is actually about the people who have been inconvenienced because of this discrimination; but I have to doubt that, since nobody’s talking about them.
So this must be about practices. Making sure the individuals/businesses do things the right way. What’s the answer to my question, then? Given that a proprietor has it in his heart to do the wrong thing, what good does it do for the nanny state to swoop in and force him to do the right thing? Seems to me this gets right to the heart of the matter. We have all these fellow citizens walking around, who think of “freedom” as a process under which a wise, bullying central authority overrules individual decisions — forces individuals/businesses to do the right thing, when the individuals’ inclination is to do the wrong thing. In other words, “force.”
Which isn’t freedom.
It seems like these are secular types, lashing out and grasping at straws, trying to find a replacement for the religious teachings they have willfully rejected. Assuming this “force is freedom” formulation is supposed to have some sort of redeeming effect on the miscreant business/individual who’d discriminate if allowed to, but happily is not allowed to, then these secular types must be believing in some object somewhere changing state, and it is that state change upon which they’re insisting. In other words, they must believe in some sort of a “soul” even as they would audibly protest that they believe in no such thing.
It’s quite fascinating. Like most strains of insanity.
- mkfreeberg | 03/01/2014 @ 11:13mkfreeberg: If there is no good answer that can be supplied in response to my question, then your question must be irrelevant.
We answered your question. There should be laws against racial, religious, and gender discrimination in public accommodations. The liberal argument is one of basic fairness and equality. The conservative argument is that it is socially unstable to allow discrimination.
mkfreeberg: Given that a proprietor has it in his heart to do the wrong thing, what good does it do for the nanny state to swoop in and force him to do the right thing?
Turns out that the Civil Rights Acts made things a lot better for minorities. And it led to dramatic beneficial social change in the greater society, as well.
Now you have never directly answered. So should businesses be allowed under the law to racially or religiously discriminate? You seem to be saying yes, but can’t seem to actually say yes.
- Zachriel | 03/01/2014 @ 13:10What I think isn’t relevant to anything at all, so it’s a moot point.
On the other matter, y’all couldn’t wait to tell us how this wonderful legislative effort was supposed to work. Stated it over and over again, in fact. Hundreds of posts, going around in a circle.
I’m just asking y’all to do it again…here. The wicked individual/business would discriminate, if allowed to, but thanks to our progressives and their fondness for the nanny-state, with their OCD urges to legislate morality, the black-hearted individual/business can’t do the discriminating they’d like to do. So this makes bad people into good people? How?
On this subject, best y’all can eke out is “Turns out that the Civil Rights Acts made things a lot better for minorities [a]nd it led to dramatic beneficial social change in the greater society…” So strange. CRA was Republican legislation anyway, so that isn’t even relevant to the gay-wedding-cake thing.
Well, I’ll take your evasiveness as confirmation. Those who seek to check the immorality of individual-level decision-making with the superior benevolence and wisdom of the state, are spiritually confused, spiritually weak and spiritually starved. They believe in something akin to a “soul” and aren’t ready to admit it.
I haven’t heard of any sad-sack case studies of gays having been turned away from businesses during the examinations of this issue. Are there some?
- mkfreeberg | 03/01/2014 @ 19:14You have never directly answered. Should businesses be allowed under the law to racially or religiously discriminate? You seem to be saying yes, but can’t seem to actually say yes.
- Zachriel | 03/01/2014 @ 20:03Z: Should businesses be allowed to racially or religiously discriminate?
Yes, a business owner should have the right to choose to serve or not to serve people for any reason, or for no reason at all. If a business owner chooses not to serve someone, that is a big flashing green light to the free market: here’s an opportunity to make money by providing goods or services to a target market that’s being underserved! The free market, when it’s not being screwed over by government meddling, tends to auto-correct.
“But Captain, what if some business owner chooses not to serve me?” Well, then, it’s his choice to be an asshat. If you disagree with his choice, the proper response is to exercise your freedom to find some other business. Then use your freedom of speech to let people know that you weren’t served because the owner is an asshat, and urge them to support non-asshat businesses. Problem solved.
This is what is known as freedom.
- Captain Midnight | 03/01/2014 @ 20:04[…] the issue of businesses refusing service has hit blogs as wells as news with a number of lawsuits brought by gays and lesbians who were denied wedding […]
- How About Freedom? | The Captain's Comments | 03/01/2014 @ 20:08Captain Midnight: Yes, a business owner should have the right to choose to serve or not to serve people for any reason, or for no reason at all.
Thank you for the direct answer.
Captain Midnight: If a business owner chooses not to serve someone, that is a big flashing green light to the free market: here’s an opportunity to make money by providing goods or services to a target market that’s being underserved!
That’s not necessarily the case. It’s quite clear that discrimination persisted even where Jim Crow wasn’t law. “Lassie can stay at the Waldorf but Negroes can’t.”
Captain Midnight: The free market, when it’s not being screwed over by government meddling, tends to auto-correct.
Tends to, but class and race differences can be self-perpetuating.
- Zachriel | 03/01/2014 @ 20:10Captain Midnight: The free market, when it’s not being screwed over by government meddling, tends to auto-correct.
Z: Tends to, but class and race differences can be self-perpetuating.
News flash for you, Z. This is 2014. And I’ve already addressed this issue.
- Captain Midnight | 03/01/2014 @ 20:24It’s quite clear that discrimination persisted even where Jim Crow wasn’t law. “Lassie can stay at the Waldorf but Negroes can’t.”
What’s this, a partial answer to the question I was asking? So this is, after all, about the tragedy of oppressed-persons being underserved?
Who, then, are these gays who can’t get their wedding cakes? How come we haven’t heard of them throughout the soap opera in Arizona recently concluded? ‘Tis truly a quandary.
It’s almost as if lefties consider preening over their own vastly superior sense of moral righteousness, to be an adequate substitute to improving a situation for someone. Well, that would explain Detroit.
- mkfreeberg | 03/01/2014 @ 20:30Free market
- Zachriel | 03/01/2014 @ 20:31http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/70980/large/Gentiles_Only_Sign.jpg
Ever notice there are some ideas that seem sensible when stated in passive voice, that don’t seem so sensible when stated in active voice?
“Are you saying they should be allowed to discriminate?”
Versus
“Are you saying the government should not force them to not-discriminate?”
If the idea requires expression in passive-voice to seem like a good idea, it probably isn’t a good idea.
Who are these gays who can’t get their wedding cakes? How come nobody has talked about them? Or am I wrong in inferring their plight is the true focus of concern here…maybe I was right the first time, that both sides agree that this is really just about the balance of power between government and business. Force and freedom.
- mkfreeberg | 03/01/2014 @ 20:39Z: Free market
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/70980/large/Gentiles_Only_Sign.jpg
Apparently you need to have it explained at least twice. The year is 2014.
- Captain Midnight | 03/01/2014 @ 20:55Captain,
it’s their legendary reading comprehension skills at work. They can’t even manage to embed a hyperlink, though I’ve showed them how to do it several times. They are basically retarded.
Though they do seem oddly precise and specific about what “the conservative argument” is. One wonders who “the conservative” is. It must be some dude they’ve got locked up in their basement. Does anyone you know argue that “it is socially unstable to allow discrimination”?
Thinking back to all those hours in all those history, philosophy, and poli sci seminars in college…. nope, I’ve never heard that. And it’s such an odd, striking phrase, you’d think it would show up on Google… but nope, not there either.
And if it’s socially unstable to allow discrimination — and this is the conservative argument — then what are they all worked up about? Are they trying to argue that y’all aren’t really conservatives, because you’re not “arguing” “against” “discrimination” in the proper fashion?
Bizarre.
- Severian | 03/01/2014 @ 21:35Captain Midnight: I’ve already addressed this issue.
Yes, but your answer is inconsistent. You say laws against discrimination are no longer necessary, implying they were once necessary, but then argue that they are never necessary. Furthermore, you claim the market will tend to self-correct, but have no answer when we pointed out that discrimination persisted even in areas not under Jim Crow.
mkfreeberg: What’s this, a partial answer to the question I was asking?
We answered your original question, which was “Given that a proprietor has it in his heart to do the wrong thing, what good does it do for the nanny state to swoop in and force him to do the right thing?” We asked you a question, “should businesses be allowed under the law to racially or religiously discriminate?” which you have repeatedly failed to answer. Notice that Captain Midnight had no problem stating his position. If you don’t have a position, then that’s fine.
mkfreeberg: If the idea requires expression in passive-voice to seem like a good idea, it probably isn’t a good idea.
Is that an answer then? Should there be laws against racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations?
Captain Midnight: The year is 2014.
That’s right. There are laws against religious discrimination in most developed countries.
Severian: Does anyone you know argue that “it is socially unstable to allow discrimination”?
It’s rather obvious that discrimination had led to social instability. The general conservative response to social instability is enforcing the status quo, or incremental reform.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 07:01http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2013/5/6/1367846464418/Civil-rights-protestors-a-010.jpg
We answered your original question, which was “Given that a proprietor has it in his heart to do the wrong thing, what good does it do for the nanny state to swoop in and force him to do the right thing?” We asked you a question, “should businesses be allowed under the law to racially or religiously discriminate?” …
So it’s allowable for y’all to answer a question with another question, while others can’t, okay. Such a double standard is necessary to make these new requirements look like some kind of a good idea. It’s also necessary for us to pretend force is equal to freedom, even as common sense tells us those two things are opposites.
When such rules have to be followed in order to make something look like a good idea, there’s a phrase to describe that: A bad idea.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 07:17I guess they didn’t have a Guardian link or a .jpg to paste.
You know, The Guardian — keen comprehenders of the conservative mind that they are. Sheesh. That’s lame even for y’all, Cuttlefish.
- Severian | 03/02/2014 @ 08:18mkfreeberg: So it’s allowable for y’all to answer a question with another question, while others can’t, okay.
We have answered your question, but you just pose new ones without returning the favor. Should there be laws against racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations?
mkfreeberg: I guess they didn’t have a Guardian link or a .jpg to paste.
Social unrest was an important component of the civil rights movement.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 08:37Biggest lie in American politics is that the “civil rights movement” was some kind of ideological definition between liberals and conservatives. BOTH sides of that split were conflicted about the transformation that was being made.
Liberals, in politics, seek to buy off voters with material goods forcefully taken from those who produce, so that the dependent-class can be bribed into supporting unscrupulous legislation they would otherwise not support. Conservatives, meanwhile, seek to conserve freedom. So they were conflicted about whether the federal authorities should intervene in local matters for sake of safeguarding freedom, since that is essentially giving up some freedoms for other freedoms.
Liberals, meanwhile, didn’t want to do anything for those “uppity negroes” unless they could be sure it would mean black votes. So they were conflicted too. In that sense, yes, there is a connection between what was going on 50 years ago and what’s happening now: The democrats want to talk about gay people being able to order wedding cakes. But they don’t want anyone outside their inner circle to actually enjoy a better life, they want people outside their inner circle to owe the people inside, to be beholden to them. They don’t want anyone to make it, they want them to be dependent.
What’s different now is that the distraction-value has taken all the priority — it’s all about making people forget about the ObamaCare debacle in advance of the 2014 midterms. I never did get a list of these sad-sack case studies, the homosexuals who tried to get wedding cakes in Arizona and weren’t able to. Odd, since last year and the year before there has been one story after another about real people, with pictures, names, and everything else, who at long last were able to get married. So now it’s all about forcing businesses not to discriminate. Well, not to discriminate against who? Who’s been suffering? Why aren’t we hearing about them?
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 08:44We have answered your question, but you just pose new ones without returning the favor.
Y’all answered a question with another question.
That may be valid in some situations, but this one is…
We answered your original question, which was “Given that a proprietor has it in his heart to do the wrong thing, what good does it do for the nanny state to swoop in and force him to do the right thing?” We asked you a question, “should businesses be allowed under the law to racially or religiously discriminate?” …
How does a “Do you think it should” question, answer a question of “How does it make anything better” question? I could see how in some situations the latter might be a valid response to the former. As it is, my question remains unanswered, even when we inspect your answer-question-with-another-question “answer.” So how do y’all say y’all answered it?
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 08:46I’ll take y’all’s evasiveness as an answer of: “It doesn’t.” So we agree. It doesn’t do any good for the nanny state to swoop in and force people to do the right thing, when those people would ordinarily do the wrong thing. It’s just a lot of useless one-more-rule-will-fix-everything grandstanding.
Glad we agree.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 08:48mkfreeberg: Liberals, meanwhile, didn’t want to do anything for those “uppity negroes” unless they could be sure it would mean black votes.
Dr. King was a liberal. So you’re saying he didn’t want to do anything for those “uppity negroes” unless he could get their votes.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 08:50Dr. King was a liberal.
Really?
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 08:52Dr. King’s Conservative Principles:
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 08:55mkfreeberg: Really?
Duh.
King favored a radical restructuring of society for greater equality. He favored ending discrimination in public accommodation. He favored affirmative action. He favored works programs, such as his March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. He was against the Vietnam War, calling America “strange liberators” who left only bitterness to build on. Finally, he was assassinated while supported a public workers’ strike.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 08:59mkfreeberg: So we agree. It doesn’t do any good for the nanny state to swoop in and force people to do the right thing, when those people would ordinarily do the wrong thing. It’s just a lot of useless one-more-rule-will-fix-everything grandstanding.
We answered your question above, so not sure why you are still confused.
There should be laws against racial, religious, and gender discrimination in public accommodations. The liberal argument is one of basic fairness and equality. The conservative argument is that it is socially unstable to have allowed discrimination to continue. Furthermore, the Civil Rights Acts made things a lot better for minorities, also leading to dramatic beneficial social change in the greater society.
We take you are against such laws. Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 09:04We answered your question above, so not sure why you are still confused.
Because you haven’t clarified — in any way — how there is any redeeming value to having the Nanny-state swoop in and force people to do the right thing, when those people would otherwise do the wrong thing. The simple way of saying it is “you can’t legislate morality.”
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 09:06mkfreeberg: how there is any redeeming value to having the Nanny-state swoop in and force people to do the right thing
The Civil Rights Acts made things a lot better for minorities, also leading to dramatic beneficial social change in the greater society.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 09:08Martin Luther King was in favor of people being treated equal, without regard to their skin color.
That’s a conservative value.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 09:09mkfreeberg:Martin Luther King was in favor of people being treated equal, without regard to their skin color.
That was a radical idea at the time.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 09:11“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 09:14mkfreeberg: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”
A radical idea. Conservatives didn’t think it applied to the dark races who defended their peculiar institution.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 09:16A radical idea. Conservatives didn’t think it applied to the dark races who defended their peculiar institution.
Conservatives believe in conserving freedom.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 09:18mkfreeberg: Conservatives believe in conserving freedom.
Historically, conservatives defend existing institutions, whether the monarchy in France, or segregation in the South. In any case, it’s clear that Dr. King was politically liberal. Here’s the list of his positions again:
* Radical social restructuring for greater equality
* Ending discrimination in public accommodations
* Affirmative action
* Works programs
* Against the Vietnam War
* Support for public workers’ union
These were all liberal positions at the time. He was considered a liberal by most people of the time, though some on the right thought he was a communist. He opposed conservative policies which generally supported the status quo or minimal reform.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 09:24Conservatives conserve freedom.
Liberals, opposed to conservatives, look for ways to erode freedom. And, ways to win votes from people who otherwise would not support their bad ideas. So they can erode more freedom.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 09:32mkfreeberg: Conservatives conserve freedom.
And liberals love liberty. Redefining words doesn’t constitute an argument.
By any reasonable definition, Dr. King was politically liberal.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 09:43Redefining words doesn’t constitute an argument.
I put up an article that cites three good examples, with quotes by Dr. King, and y’all’s answer is “redefining words doesn’t constitute an argument.”
By any reasonable definition, Dr. King was politically liberal.
We agree, then. Dr. King was politically liberal if, and only if, you don’t pay attention to what’s being said and what’s going on.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 09:46Why Liberals Hate Liberty:
When people’s choices are subordinated in importance to the “social vision,” that isn’t liberty. “Redefining words doesn’t constitute an argument.”
Gets back to the very beginning of the argument: Force isn’t freedom. Any idea that looks like a good one only when we pretend those two opposite things are the same, isn’t likely to actually be a good idea.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 10:06mkfreeberg: I put up an article that cites three good examples, with quotes by Dr. King, and y’all’s answer is “redefining words doesn’t constitute an argument.”
Sigh. We’ll try again.
1) Conservatives resisted greater equality, at the time of the American Revolution and afterwards.
2) Faith and moral character are conservative values, but they are so widespread as to not constitute a point of difference between most conservatives and most liberals.
3) The core principles of America’s founding are radical principles, not conservative ones. The English lords who resisted American freedoms were the conservatives in that situation.
mkfreeberg: Dr. King was politically liberal if, and only if, you don’t pay attention to what’s being said and what’s going on.
Someone in the 1960s supports radical social restructuring for greater, ending discrimination in public accommodations, affirmative action, works programs, against the Vietnam War accusing the U.S. of arrogance, and supports public workers’ unions. These are all liberal positions, and they are the core of Dr. King’s political movement.
You use mangled definitions in order make things fit your preconceptions.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 10:17mkfreeberg: Gets back to the very beginning of the argument: Force isn’t freedom.
So to clarify, you’re against laws against racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 10:18Sigh. We’ll try again.
The reading comprehension thing again. I did not say, “I understand The Zachriel have the corner on the market on correctly distinguishing conservatives from liberals, but I’m not quite clear on how they do that.” What I said was that my source was substantial, and y’all dismissed it with “refuting words doesn’t constitute an argument,” which is an error. That, in fact, may also be due to the reading comprehension thing.
Y’all do seem to be peddling a bunch of pre-rehearsed snippets which seem to have been written to directly address and refute statements that, in the here & now, nobody is actually making.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 11:03For figuring out the meaning of “liberal” in current times, I find this graphic is much more fitting:
Z: Yes, but your answer is inconsistent. You say laws against discrimination are no longer necessary, implying they were once necessary, but then argue that they are never necessary. Furthermore, you claim the market will tend to self-correct, but have no answer when we pointed out that discrimination persisted even in areas not under Jim Crow.
I really can’t help your lack of reading comprehension. But you could try examples from this century if you want to be relevant to the current situation. And in this situation of discrimination in businesses, I propose freedom. I have to assume that your go-to principle is more government and less freedom. Am I correct?
- Captain Midnight | 03/02/2014 @ 11:35mkfreeberg: What I said was that my source was substantial
Your source was a polemic. While there are certainly conservative elements in King’s philosophy, he was politically liberal.
mkfreeberg: y’all dismissed it
No, we addressed it point-by-point, then provided examples of King’s liberal views. You have yet to address those instances.
mkfreeberg: “refuting words doesn’t constitute an argument,”
You probably mean “redefining words doesn’t constitute an argument”, which is true.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 12:14Captain Midnight: But you could try examples from this century if you want to be relevant to the current situation.
As there are laws against racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations, there will be few such examples, and they will rarely be overt.
Captain Midnight: I have to assume that your go-to principle is more government and less freedom. Am I correct?
There’s always a trade off. In this case, once a business opens as a public accommodation, we support laws against racial and religious discrimination. This maximizes freedom for the greatest number at little expense to business, who, you have claimed contrary to history, generally won’t discriminate anyway.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 12:23You probably mean “redefining words doesn’t constitute an argument”, which is true.
Since y’all are now reduced to dismissing phrases I originally got from y’all, it’s clear y’all won’t be convinced no matter what I say, which is something that was clear from the outset. And, this is among the sturdiest evidence to be gathered thus far that y’all are actually just a web application built to find ways to dismiss inconvenient arguments.
Therefore, the best this exchange can reveal is not which side is right, or why we are to think one side is right, but rather what is needed to make y’all’s statements appear reasonable. Let’s see:
– We have to pretend forcing decisions on businesses is “liberty,” when common sense tells us force and freedom are opposites;
– We have to ignore as “a polemic” the many sturdy supports offered that Martin Luther King was a conservative;
– We have to imagine risible and made-up definitions for “conservative” that wouldn’t find agreement with too many self-identifying conservatives, perhaps with none of them;
– Last but not least, we have to ENTIRELY ignore the quite reasonable argument that you cannot legislate morality. That when people who ordinarily would make wrong decisions, are forced to make the right ones, this doesn’t improve the situation anywhere for anybody.
There are no case studies to be offered of gay people being refused their wedding cakes, in Arizona or elsewhere, thus no anecdotes that might lead a reasonable observer to think this is a good way to go. Which is exceedingly odd, since whenever budget cuts threaten continued unemployment insurance extensions, or legislation is considered requiring health insurance plans to provide free contraceptives and it looks like there might be some resistance to it, the case studies come out of the woodwork.
So it has yet to be argued that this is a good idea. In any way.
And force isn’t freedom.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 13:41mkfreeberg: We have to pretend forcing decisions on businesses is “liberty,” when common sense tells us force and freedom are opposites
So you’re against all laws concerning business? What about fraud? Should that be left to the market?
mkfreeberg: We have to ignore as “a polemic” the many sturdy supports offered that Martin Luther King was a conservative
We didn’t ignore it. We responded directly, point-by-point.
mkfreeberg: We have to imagine risible and made-up definitions for “conservative” that wouldn’t find agreement with too many self-identifying conservatives, perhaps with none of them
Merriam-Webster: conservative, believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society
Oxford Dictionary: conservative, averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values
Wikipedia: Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions.
mkfreeberg: Last but not least, we have to ENTIRELY ignore the quite reasonable argument that you cannot legislate morality.
So there should be no laws whatsoever?
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 14:15So you’re against all laws concerning business? What about fraud? Should that be left to the market?
Struggling to see how this is relevant. Best I can come up with:
1. What’s right and what’s wrong, is determined by simple majority (flimsy).
2. The majority-vote is determined by taking an informal, unscientific poll over the Internet (flimsier).
3. Proprietors of blogs-that-nobody-actually-reads should receive disproportionate weight in determining the outcome of this unscientific poll (unsustainable).
Meanwhile, the question persists. I’m an evil business owner. I want to discriminate against people because I’m evil and wicked. The nanny-state won’t let me.
How does this make me a better person?
How does this make life better for those gay people ordering wedding cakes I’m forced to bake? (And assuming it does, how come we’re not talking about them?)
Merriam-Webster: conservative, believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society
In America, the established and traditional practice is: Freedom. Conservatives want to keep it. Liberals want to trash it.
So there should be no laws whatsoever?
We have lots of good laws that don’t legislate morality. Maybe this graphic can help make the point:
So the “Don’t kill people” law might have two purposes: Make people more moral, so they don’t want to kill each other; or, improve the lives of people who would be killed, by extending those lives, eliminating their killing as an option to those who’d like to kill them. The truth that makes the graphic funny is that the “Don’t kill people” law has everything to do with the latter and nothing to do with the former.
So let’s try this again. Is the prohibition under discussion, the same way? If not, then how is it supposed to make people more moral simply by eliminating this option they would like to practice, what with their being so wicked and evil and everything. But if so, then who are these people who hope to get their gay wedding cakes, and how come we don’t hear about them?
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 14:41mkfreeberg: Struggling to see how this is relevant.
Because you said “force isn’t freedom”, but history shows that laws are required for freedom, and laws mean force.
mkfreeberg: 1. What’s right and what’s wrong, is determined by simple majority (flimsy).
Didn’t say that, and it is not our position.
mkfreeberg: 2. The majority-vote is determined by taking an informal, unscientific poll over the Internet (flimsier).
Didn’t say that, and it is not our position.
mkfreeberg: 3. Proprietors of blogs-that-nobody-actually-reads should receive disproportionate weight in determining the outcome of this unscientific poll (unsustainable).
Didn’t say that, and it is not our position.
mkfreeberg: How does this make me a better person?
It doesn’t, but it can help make life better for those who would otherwise be excluded.
mkfreeberg: In America, the established and traditional practice is: Freedom. Conservatives want to keep it. Liberals want to trash it.
You had said “We have to imagine risible and made-up definitions for ‘conservative'”, yet it was imaginary or risible, but the standard usage of the term.
Zachriel: So there should be no laws whatsoever?
You have a great deal of trouble answering straightforward question.
mkfreeberg: We have lots of good laws that don’t legislate morality.
Sure, but it’s the ones that do legislate morality that often have the broadest support, such as laws against murder or fraud. Traffic laws generally don’t legislate morality, but just provide a framework for the orderly movement of vehicles.
mkfreeberg: Is the prohibition under discussion, the same way?
Do you mean discrimination against gays? Certainly there are many similarities between that and discrimination by race or religion. Indeed, that was the obvious implication of our first comment.
You’ve suggested you are against laws against racial and religious discrimination. If that is your position, then at least you are being consistent. Is that your position?
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 14:54Because you said “force isn’t freedom”, but history shows that laws are required for freedom, and laws mean force.
Yeah, I get that part of it. The deprivation of one man’s freedom, is the fulfillment of another man’s freedom.
But in the case of these [Arizona] businesses that are disallowed from “discriminating,” I don’t know whose freedom has been expanded. And I’m quite sure y’all don’t know either.
Kinda funny how often “liberals” champion “liberty” when they are doing everything in the world to restrict that liberty, and nothing at all to expand it. It’s a situation we seem to have come to expect as normal. I find that interesting. Perhaps y’all don’t…for some reason.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 16:02mkfreeberg: Yeah, I get that part of it. The deprivation of one man’s freedom, is the fulfillment of another man’s freedom.
Actually, the rule of law is required for everyone’s freedom.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 16:101. You can sit in judgment of my answers to your questions, and determine that they are not satisfactory. I am not allowed to pass judgment on your answers to my questions, even when they are nothing more than other-questions, that do not answer my questions even in the slightest.
2. Things that are different from each other, even things that are opposites from each other, like “force and freedom,” M-U-S-T be thought of as synonyms.
3. We need to imagine that someone has enjoyed a higher quality of life, and/or expanded freedom, in the aftermath of this “businesses are not allowed to discriminate” thing going on in Arizona — when there aren’t any examples. Not even one.
That’s what it takes for y’all’s idea to look like a good one.
When that’s all required to make an idea look good, there is a way to describe that. “A bad idea.”
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 16:19mkfreeberg: 1. You can sit in judgment of my answers to your questions, and determine that they are not satisfactory.
When we disagree, we provide reasons for our disagreement.
mkfreeberg: I am not allowed to pass judgment on your answers to my questions
When you disagree, you might want to provide reasons for your disagreement, instead of diverting. For instance, we provided More’s argument for the rule of law, but you ignored it.
mkfreeberg: 2. Things that are different from each other, even things that are opposites from each other, like “force and freedom,” M-U-S-T be thought of as synonyms.
You probably mean antonyms. In any case, as we said, laws are required to preserve freedom, so force and freedom are not always in opposition. The problem you perceive is due to black-and-white thinking.
mkfreeberg: 3. We need to imagine that someone has enjoyed a higher quality of life, and/or expanded freedom, in the aftermath of this “businesses are not allowed to discriminate” thing going on in Arizona — when there aren’t any examples. Not even one.
That would an argument against the Arizona law.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 17:17You probably mean antonyms.
No, I mean synonyms. I mean to criticize y’all’s point of view, as in: It is only legitimized, in fact only given the appearance of legitimacy, when we pretend two things are identical when common sense counsels us that they are, in fact, opposites.
Which is a tip-off that y’all’s idea is wrong. Force isn’t freedom.
Who are these gay people who can’t get their wedding cakes, anyway? Y’all still haven’t answered.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 17:21mkfreeberg: No, I mean synonyms.
Well, we can resolve that fairly easily. Force and freedom are not synonyms.
You apparently reject the rule of law, but it’s hard to say for sure as you never commit to a viewpoint when pressed. We provided More’s argument for the rule of law, but you ignored it.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2014 @ 19:49Well, we can resolve that fairly easily. Force and freedom are not synonyms. You apparently reject the rule of law, but it’s hard to say for sure as you never commit to a viewpoint when pressed.
Glad we’re in agreement, then. So a civil or criminal prohibition against discrimination — the force — does not result in greater freedom for anybody, and we can stop pretending that it does. As we recognize this simple truth, are y’all taking the position that this means we “reject the rule of law”? Does the law require us to pretend different things are synonymous when they really aren’t?
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2014 @ 21:34mkfreeberg: So a civil or criminal prohibition against discrimination — the force — does not result in greater freedom for anybody
We didn’t say that either. They are not synonyms, nor are they antonyms. Nor are they always in contradiction. The Civil Rights Acts clearly increased liberty in the U.S.
mkfreeberg: As we recognize this simple truth, are y’all taking the position that this means we “reject the rule of law”?
That’s what we’re asking you. Our contention is that the rule of law is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for liberty. As usual, you can’t bring yourself to say.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2014 @ 06:37We didn’t say that either. They are not synonyms, nor are they antonyms. Nor are they always in contradiction. The Civil Rights Acts clearly increased liberty in the U.S.
Now we come to the heart of the matter. Y’all have this concept of “liberty” which, contrary to this casual conflation you’re making now, at least in y’all’s collective mind is not the same thing as “freedom” which has to do with being free; enjoying options and choices.
It appears y’all are, at least in some situations, opposed to this but won’t come out and say so, instead choosing to hide behind this little shell game involving some undefinable definition of “liberty.” The L-word is interchangeable with the F-word, when it suits y’all for it to be. But that would not be arguing in good faith.
Our contention is that the rule of law is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for liberty. As usual, you can’t bring yourself to say.
++chuckle++ We never did establish who’s asking.
And what is the definition of liberty? Whatever it means to y’all, it seems to be a very important concept but it cannot be sincerely equated with freedom, since y’all are saying there was greater liberty after changes in our history in which some people lost their choices, and nobody else gained any choices save for some authoritarian overlords who could boss them around. We don’t have anyone gaining this freedom now with the “Wedding cake decorators must decorate gay wedding cakes” thing…it’s simply a measurable net loss of choice. But we have more of something y’all call “liberty.”
It seems y’all are using that word to describe nothing more or less than political movements y’all like, winning out over political movements y’all don’t like.
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2014 @ 07:32mkfreeberg: Y’all have this concept of “liberty” which, contrary to this casual conflation you’re making now, at least in y’all’s collective mind is not the same thing as “freedom” which has to do with being free; enjoying options and choices.
Merriam-Webster
liberty, the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely
freedom, the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
mkfreeberg: It appears y’all are, at least in some situations, opposed to this but won’t come out and say so
Actually, we have stated our position clearly many times. You are the one who can’t bring themselves to state their position. You indulge in black-and-white thinking. There is no perfect freedom. There are always trade-offs. Our position is that laws, meaning force, are necessary but not sufficient to preserve fundamental individual freedoms.
Do you think the rule of law is necessary to the preservation of individual freedoms?
- Zachriel | 03/03/2014 @ 08:21Captain Midnight: I have to assume that your go-to principle is more government and less freedom. Am I correct?
Z: There’s always a trade off.
So the answer is yes. Thank you for making that clear.
For some reason I get this vision of IRS agents acting as the high priests of the government, shaking their aspergillum of holy law over racially and religiously bigoted business owners, and shouting at them, “The power of the state compels you! The power of the state compels you!”
But it’s for their own good. One more law will set them free.
- Captain Midnight | 03/03/2014 @ 10:55Well, crap. Messed up the close em tag.
- Captain Midnight | 03/03/2014 @ 10:55Captain Midnight: So the answer is yes.
No, that is not correct.
Captain Midnight: I have to assume that your go-to principle is more government and less freedom. Am I correct?
Some government can mean more freedom. Government is necessary, but not sufficient, for the maintenance of individual liberty. The principle is set out in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2014 @ 11:08Captain Midnight: I have to assume that your go-to principle is more government and less freedom. Am I correct?
Z: Some government can mean more freedom.
But your solution to pretty much every issue, as you have expressed in so many posts on this blog, is always for more government laws and regulations. So the answer is yes.
One more law will set you free. The power of the state compels you!
- Captain Midnight | 03/03/2014 @ 13:38Captain Midnight: But your solution to pretty much every issue, as you have expressed in so many posts on this blog, is always for more government laws and regulations.
Indeed, that is not our position. The government needs be constrained.
On the other hand, you and others on this blog have suggested that more government inevitably means less freedom. Our position is that some government is necessary to protect freedom and to create a stable society. Where to draw the line is a reasonable question, but something that can’t be addressed when asserting that supporting the necessity of government means supporting tyranny.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2014 @ 13:48liberty, the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely
Mkay well, if that’s y’all’s definition, then y’all aren’t using it right because y’all are characterizing an expansion of it, where people are demonstrably and measurably losing it.
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2014 @ 18:46mkfreeberg: Mkay well, if that’s y’all’s definition, then y’all aren’t using it right because y’all are characterizing an expansion of it, where people are demonstrably and measurably losing it.
We asked if you think the rule of law is necessary to the preservation of individual freedoms?
- Zachriel | 03/03/2014 @ 19:04We asked if you think the rule of law is necessary to the preservation of individual freedoms?
In certain situations, it is possible. It does not necessarily follow that the preservation of individual freedom is a constant happy consequence of more laws. To presume this must be the case, would be a textbook case of cargo-cult thinking.
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2014 @ 19:51mkfreeberg: In certain situations, it is possible.
The principle is set out in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Are there exceptions in modern society?
mkfreeberg: It does not necessarily follow that the preservation of individual freedom is a constant happy consequence of more laws.
Absolutely. Sometimes laws can be antithetical to freedom.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 06:05In order to effect a balance, the question has to be asked about cost-benefit. Does the new law create more & better freedom, compared to what it takes away?
Like the profit involved in selling a stock, one side of this is certain and the other side is open to question (since there are expenses involved in these transactions). Creating or expanding the freedom, with any new law, is a highly questionable prospect. But right out of the chute, by prohibiting something, the law does something to eliminate freedom. Someone’s option has to be eliminated. That is what laws do.
Therefore, it is the law that curtails freedom that is the normal case. The law that expands freedom, on balance, is the exceptional case. The Arizona law that was just defeated would have been one of the exceptions, since it would have offered protection; the only people whose freedoms would have been curtailed, would be potential plaintiffs and their representative counsel.
It may be true that with the law defeated, their “freedoms” have been protected. Thank goodness! But who t’heck are they? Where are they? Until we hear from them, it is logical to conclude that freedom has been curtailed with the law’s defeat, not expanded, and the public has been hoodwinked.
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2014 @ 06:14mkfreeberg: In order to effect a balance, the question has to be asked about cost-benefit. Does the new law create more & better freedom, compared to what it takes away?
Sure.
mkfreeberg: he only people whose freedoms would have been curtailed, would be potential plaintiffs and their representative counsel.
That, and gays who would be excluded from some public accommodations. Suppose businesses could post signs “Gays not allowed” so they wouldn’t have to be embarrassed at the front desk.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 06:22Suppose businesses could post signs “Gays not allowed” so they wouldn’t have to be embarrassed at the front desk.
Well, when we have to suppose things that haven’t actually happened, in order to make an idea look like a good one, there’s a way to describe that idea: A bad idea.
Y’all refer to liberty being expanded with these social reforms y’all like. Well the question stands, with the defeat of this law: Where has the liberty been expanded? You’d have to produce these “gays who would be excluded from some public accommodations.” Who are they? What public accommodations? Where is the anecdotal evidence?
Until we see that, we have to decide it by way of reductio ad absurdum: Imagine anyone, anywhere, anytime, might be sued for anything, even for thinking the wrong things. Would that be greater liberty?
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2014 @ 06:37mkfreeberg: Well, when we have to suppose things that haven’t actually happened, in order to make an idea look like a good one, there’s a way to describe that idea: A bad idea.
The reason the Arizona law was passed was because there is a political constituency for discriminating against gays. Do you really need a list of anti-gay statements from political and religious leaders?
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 06:44The reason the Arizona law was passed was because there is a political constituency for discriminating against gays.
Assuming that is true, what does defeating this law do to that constituency?
Force them to bake the wedding cakes for the gays? Make them realize how much they suck? Shrink them and stick them in a bottle somewhere?
Where’s the liberty being expanded?
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2014 @ 06:58mkfreeberg: Force them to bake the wedding cakes for the gays?
Arizona has decided not to put their approval on anti-gay bias in public accommodations.
mkfreeberg: Where’s the liberty being expanded?
It’s a small step in providing equal opportunity for gays.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 07:04Z: On the other hand, you and others on this blog have suggested that more government inevitably means less freedom.
That more government inevitably means less freedom is a truism that is so obvious it shouldn’t need explaining, but it’s also obvious that you need it explained. I guess this effort will be in vain, but I’ll undertake it anyway today. Here’s the logic:
1) Governments pass laws and regulations. It’s what they do.
2) Government laws and regulations generally fall into two camps: THOU SHALT and THOU SHALT NOT. Both limit what people are allowed to do, and the people better do or not do what the government decrees or face the government’s wrath. Now before you nitpick, there are laws that rescind some previous prohibition, like the recent marijuana laws of Washington and Colorado, but they are the rare outliers, and not the norm.
3) Governments pass laws and regulations. Yes, I’m repeating this, but I want to ensure that you grok this point. Each year there are thousands of new laws and regulations. And each one is a screaming THOU SHALT or THOU SHALT NOT backed up by the full force of the federal government. (The power of the state compels you!)
So, with each law or regulation that circumscribes, limits, and defines our life, are we more or less free? Since you answer direct questions with the alacrity of an arthritic sloth, I’ll answer it for you: with each law or regulation that circumscribes, limits, and defines our lives, we, the American people, are less free. And thus more government inevitably means less freedom.
Q.E.D.
- Captain Midnight | 03/04/2014 @ 10:07Captain Midnight: That more government inevitably means less freedom is a truism that is so obvious it shouldn’t need explaining, but it’s also obvious that you need it explained.
1) True.
2) Largely true.
3) Still true.
Captain Midnight: So, with each law or regulation that circumscribes, limits, and defines our life, are we more or less free?
They restrict freedom in some areas, but may secure more rights than a situation without laws, such as either anarchy or whimsical dictatorship.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 10:28Captain Midnight: So, with each law or regulation that circumscribes, limits, and defines our life, are we more or less free?
Z: They restrict freedom in some areas, but may secure more rights than a situation without laws, such as either anarchy or whimsical dictatorship.
With one law that restricts freedom in some area (100% likely), our rights may be more secure (<100% likely).
With 100 laws that restrict freedom in some area (100% likely), our rights may be more secure (<100% likely).
With 100,000 laws that restrict freedom in some area (100% likely), our rights may be more secure (<100% likely).
With 1,000,000 laws that restrict freedom in some area (100% likely), our rights may be more secure (<100% likely).
And so on.
By your own admission, with each THOU SHALT/THOU SHALT NOT that the government passes, our freedoms are reduced. In some of these laws, the reduction in freedom is offset by a more secure right, but that doesn’t happen in a 1 to 1 ratio. Thus as our laws increase, our freedoms decrease. To make a monetary analogy, imagine that for each $10 you give me, I might give you $10 back. Is your overall bank balance going up or down as you continue giving me $10? Obviously the trend is downward.
In the same way more government inevitably means less freedom. Are you so obtuse that you cannot see this truth?
- Captain Midnight | 03/04/2014 @ 10:53Captain Midnight: With one law that restricts freedom in some area (100% likely), our rights may be more secure (<100% likely).
Depends on the law.
Captain Midnight: And so on.
With no laws, the chance of securing freedom in the modern world is negligible.
Captain Midnight: By your own admission, with each THOU SHALT/THOU SHALT NOT that the government passes, our freedoms are reduced.
Reduced in some area, but perhaps increased in others. So a traffic light restricts some movement, but increases overall mobility.
Captain Midnight: In some of these laws, the reduction in freedom is offset by a more secure right, but that doesn’t happen in a 1 to 1 ratio.
Agreed.
Captain Midnight: In the same way more government inevitably means less freedom.
No. Some government may mean more freedom.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 10:58Captain Midnight: Thus as our laws increase, our freedoms decrease.
To use your analogy:
No laws, chance of securing freedom 0%
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 11:03With laws, chance of securing freedom >0%
Captain Midnight: In the same way more government inevitably means less freedom.
Z: No. Some government may mean more freedom.
You really are so obtuse that don’t comprehend that your answer of “Some government may mean more freedom” is not a refutation of the statement that “more government inevitably means less freedom.”
Some government is necessary to protect our liberties, establish a common foundation for business, and to set standards. But the issue at hand is not “some” government but “more.” Let’s imagine a hypothetical country of perfectly maximized freedoms and liberties with “some” government. Does that government stop passing more laws and regulations? Of course not, governments pass laws and regulations. It’s what they do. And so with each passing year and additional laws and regulations freedom is decrease, and thus more government inevitably means less freedom.
- Captain Midnight | 03/04/2014 @ 11:12Captain: “Some government may mean more freedom” is not a refutation of the statement that “more government inevitably means less freedom.”
If we start with anarchy, then more government may mean more freedom, not inevitably less.
Captain: Some government is necessary to protect our liberties, establish a common foundation for business, and to set standards.
Agreed.
Captain: But the issue at hand is not “some” government but “more.”
By more you must mean more than some unspecified amount.
Captain: Let’s imagine a hypothetical country of perfectly maximized freedoms and liberties with “some” government.
Let’s imagine a real country with a poorly designed central government incapable of meeting the challenges before it. Call that government the Articles of Confederation.
Captain: And so with each passing year and additional laws and regulations freedom is decrease, and thus more government inevitably means less freedom.
Well, there can be too much government certainly. While governments tend to expand, the process is not inevitable.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 11:20Well, there can be too much government certainly.
Thank you for admitting, in your typical roundabout way, that more government inevitably means less freedom.
Z: While governments tend to expand, the process is not inevitable.
No, governments always expand the number of laws and regulations. It’s what they do. The only alternative is to wipe the slate clean by abolishing all laws and starting over with a new government, which will then proceed to pass laws and regulations. At some point the number of laws and regulations will stifle freedoms more than they benefit, and then as you add more laws and regulations, there will be less freedom.
For someone who says that government needs be constrained, you have a real difficulty in recognizing that more government inevitably means less freedom. If that were not the case, government wouldn’t need to be constrained.
- Captain Midnight | 03/04/2014 @ 11:38Captain Midnight: Thank you for admitting, in your typical roundabout way, that more government inevitably means less freedom.
Don’t understand why you are still confused. Is some government more than no government? Is some greater than none?
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 11:53Z: Is some government more than no government? Is some greater than none?
Of course some is more than none. But in your fixation of starting at zero and looking at some being greater than none, you miss the main point that there can be, and will be, more government. It’s like numbers. Take any number you like, and more can be added to it. And then more again. Likewise, take any amount of laws and regulations by government, and more can be, and will be, added to it. As you add more government, inevitably there will be less freedom as more and more laws and regulations are enacted, imposing limits on people. If you say, “Nope, at this point we still are enjoying an expansion of freedoms by these laws and regulations,” then imagine the number increasing by many orders of magnitude. Still feeling like you are just as free with so many more rules limiting what you can/can’t do? Then repeat the process until, inevitably, more government means less freedom.
Have you groked this finally?
- Captain Midnight | 03/04/2014 @ 12:45Captain Midnight: Of course some is more than none.
Okay.
Captain Midnight: But in your fixation of starting at zero and looking at some being greater than none, you miss the main point that there can be, and will be, more government.
Possibly, but your formulation didn’t allow for exceptions, such as no government or very weak government.
Captain Midnight: If you say, “Nope, at this point we still are enjoying an expansion of freedoms by these laws and regulations,” then imagine the number increasing by many orders of magnitude.
Governments can be reduced in size and scope. For instance, Sweden’s government has been reduced from more than 60% of GDP to less than 50% of GDP over the last few decades.
http://www.economics21.org/files/02082012chart2.PNG
Most developed countries seem to be stabilizing at a public sector of about 40%-50% of GDP.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 13:06Fine. Let’s tax all liberals at about 40%-50% of their gross income.
mkfreeberg: Let’s tax all liberals at about 40%-50% of their gross income.
When you account for all taxes, that is about what people pay—at least in the richest countries.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 13:15Let’s make sure the liberals are paying it before anyone else.
I mean hey, if they’re so right about it all and they have a lock on the right ideas, stands to reason they should be “taking” the lion’s share of that GDP.
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2014 @ 13:18They certainly are willing to part with more cash to make everything the way they want it. Party of the little guy, and all that.
Would lower taxes be more liberty, or less liberty?
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2014 @ 13:22Captain Midnight: But in your fixation of starting at zero and looking at some being greater than none, you miss the main point that there can be, and will be, more government.
Z: Possibly, but your formulation didn’t allow for exceptions, such as no government or very weak government.
*sigh* Do you have to work hard to be this obtuse, or do you come by it naturally?
No government – there is a starting point of zero laws and regulations identified, now imagine that a government forms and starts passing laws and regulations. Now imagine more. And repeat, repeat, repeat. Will you forever be saying, “Gosh, all these trillions of laws and regulations sure do make me free”? That’s just absurd. At some point, inevitably, the increasing burden of THOU SHALT/THOU SHALT NOT of laws and regulations will reduce the freedoms of the people in that country. Inevitably. Now in the case of a country with no government that continues to have no government, then there is no “more” and thus the statement doesn’t apply to that situation. Can you comprehend that? If not, reread it until you do.
Weak government – we have a starting point identified that is greater than zero, but the exact number really doesn’t matter. Now imagine more laws and regulations. Now imagine more. And repeat, repeat, repeat. If you tack on zeros to the number of laws, inevitably, you will reach the point of diminished freedoms. Can you comprehend that? If not, reread it until you do.
Z: Sweden’s government has been reduced from more than 60% of GDP to less than 50% of GDP over the last few decades.
Irrelevant even if government spending is somehow a measure of the people’s freedom.
Z: Governments can be reduced in size and scope.
Again irrelevant. Let’s take Sweden and pretend that the reduction in government spending is the same as a reduction in the number of Swedish laws and regulations. Now imagine more laws and regulations. Now imagine more. And repeat, repeat, repeat. At some point, inevitably, the increasing burden of THOU SHALT/THOU SHALT NOT of laws and regulations in Sweden will reduce the freedoms of the people in that country.
The truth remains that more government inevitably means less freedom. If you can’t see that is true with some number of laws and regulations, just add ten zeros to the end of the number, and consider the freedoms then. Then repeat and repeat and repeat. Inevitably, more government will mean less freedom.
- Captain Midnight | 03/04/2014 @ 13:37mkfreeberg: Let’s make sure the liberals are paying it before anyone else.
Blue states do pay more taxes, including to the federal government.
mkfreeberg: Would lower taxes be more liberty, or less liberty?
It depends. No little tax might mean the government may be too weak to secure basic liberties or provide a stable environment for business, and in the extreme could mean anarchy. Too much tax might mean that there is too little room for markets to drive economic growth, and in the extreme, could mean tyranny.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 13:37Captain Midnight: Now imagine more laws and regulations.
Sure we understand your concern about excessive government. Your previous statement did not state this correctly.
Wrong: “more government inevitably means less freedom.”
Right: “too much government inevitably means less freedom”
Captain Midnight: Irrelevant even if government spending is somehow a measure of the people’s freedom.
Certainly too much government can infringe on people’s freedom.
Captain Midnight: Let’s take Sweden and pretend that the reduction in government spending is the same as a reduction in the number of Swedish laws and regulations.
Sweden also reduced government regulations in order to spur growth, such as making it easier to fire workers.
Captain Midnight: Now imagine more laws and regulations.
We can imagine it, but the facts are the contrary. They’ve reduced the size and scope of government. Because they have been successful, other governments are looking at their reforms as models for their own development.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 13:47@Captain Midnight,
they work very, very hard at being that obtuse. Take a gander at this — certainly one of their greatest hits. Watch them try, and fail hilariously, to restate the sentence “What is often confused with a trickle-down theory is supply-side economics, such as that advocated by Arthur Laffer” in their own words. Thirty some odd posts, with me coaching them every step of the way, and they still blew it.
It’s actually kind of impressive in its way. Like watching a retarded kid eat a whole wheel of brie or something — you know it’s bad, and you feel horribly guilty for laughing at the disabled, but you gotta give ’em points for the effort.
- Severian | 03/04/2014 @ 13:57Z: Your previous statement did not state this correctly.
Wrong: “more government inevitably means less freedom.”
Right: “too much government inevitably means less freedom”
I think we have seen enough examples of your lack of reading comprehension, but I think memory loss now needs to be looked into. Almost exactly 24 hours ago, you started this when you wrote the following:
Both ways of stating the issue are correct because as you add more government, you will eventually hit too much government. I’m glad to see that at some level you understand this even if your pride prevents you from outright acknowledging the validity that more government inevitably means less freedom.
Captain Midnight: Let’s take Sweden and pretend that the reduction in government spending is the same as a reduction in the number of Swedish laws and regulations.
Z: Sweden also reduced government regulations in order to spur growth, such as making it easier to fire workers.
The whole conversation has been about laws and regulations, and you bring up this digression of Sweden’s GDP. Reducing laws and regulations may lead to a growth of GDP, but laws and regulations are not the same as GDP. You brought it up as somehow being the same. Either you are trying to distract from your inability to acknowledge the truth or you are hung up with comprehending that different things are different.
Captain Midnight: Now imagine more laws and regulations.
Z: We can imagine it, but the facts are the contrary. They’ve reduced the size and scope of government. Because they have been successful, other governments are looking at their reforms as models for their own development.
You really suck at this whole Gedankenexperiment thing, dontcha? The issue here is more government, and you want to squirrel off into discussions of less or zero. Take any level of government laws and regulations you want to mention and keep adding more. Eventually, inevitably, more government means less freedom.
- Captain Midnight | 03/04/2014 @ 14:14@Severian,
Yeah, I read as that train wreck unfolded, and I just had to shake my head in disbelief. I jokingly say that with my desk job I get my exercise by jumping to conclusions, but I’m thinking Z actually puts real effort into missing a point so consistently and completely.
- Captain Midnight | 03/04/2014 @ 14:19Captain Midnight: Both ways of stating the issue are correct because as you add more government, you will eventually hit too much government.
If some government is more than no government, then they do not mean the same thing. While too much government means less freedom, too little government can also means less freedom.
Captain Midnight: The whole conversation has been about laws and regulations, and you bring up this digression of Sweden’s GDP.
Government consumption to GDP is a measure of the size of government. If a government increases from 40% to 50% of GDP, then it is reasonable to say there is more government. In any case, they also reduced regulation, which you had said was not possible.
Captain Midnight: The issue here is more government, and you want to squirrel off into discussions of less or zero.
Perhaps English is not your first language. More means a greater or additional amount or degree. So if you have no government, then some government is more government. If you have a minimalist government, then a slight increase is still more government.
Captain Midnight: Eventually, inevitably, more government means less freedom.
You mean if government continues to grow, eventually it will mean less freedom? If so, we agree.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 14:30Captain Midnight: Both ways of stating the issue are correct because as you add more government, you will eventually hit too much government.
Z: If some government is more than no government, then they do not mean the same thing. While too much government means less freedom, too little government can also means less freedom.
You do have a issue with grasping that the discussion is about more government while you keep bringing up none or little.
Z: More means a greater or additional amount or degree. So if you have no government, then some government is more government. If you have a minimalist government, then a slight increase is still more government.
You do seem to have grasped the basics of “more.” Now let’s see if you can apply it successfully to the discussion at hand.
Captain Midnight: Eventually, inevitably, more government means less freedom.
Z: You mean if government continues to grow, eventually it will mean less freedom? If so, we agree.
Success! I’m too lazy to go back and count, but I’m curious as to the number of times I had to hammer home the concept of increasing and increasing and increasing laws and regulations eventually reaching the point of diminishing freedoms for you to grasp the truth of this issue. Seriously, how many repetitions is enough for you to pick up on a frankly simple concept? Knowing the number will make future discussions easier. “Only three more repetitions, and we can begin to hope that the concept will be understood.”
- Captain Midnight | 03/04/2014 @ 14:58@Captain Midnight,
I’m thinking Z actually puts real effort into missing a point so consistently and completely.
They do, they really really do. It’s actually a pretty nice example of a common failing you see in academia (albeit an extreme one) — if they were merely stupid, they’d still occasionally get it, or at least fail to get it in an understandable way. It actually takes a little bit of brainpower along with all the sweat to be that dumb that consistently.
I know there are some lurkers here who enjoy watching them get flensed time and time again, but for the life of me I can’t figure out why the Z themselves still come here. They’ve never once made a coherent point, never made an actual argument, and they’ve certainly never learned anything. Masochistic compulsion? I don’t like playing armchair psychologist, but that’s all I’ve got.
- Severian | 03/04/2014 @ 15:06@Severian,
I’m reminded of a quote from The Long Kiss Goodnight which is just packed with fun quotes.
Charlie: Were you always this stupid, or did you take lessons?
- Captain Midnight | 03/04/2014 @ 15:13Mitch Henessey: I took lessons.
Heh. Nice.
If I had to guess, they’re grad students, or maybe just wish they were. Unfortunately, I’ve been around the type quite a bit, and the point of the exercise seems to beat any last vestige of original thought out of the students’ heads. Well, that, and memorizing jargon to baffle the hoi polloi. Because that’s what Smart People do.
So, yeah, they took lessons. Lots of ’em. And in this case, they absolutely got their money’s worth.
- Severian | 03/04/2014 @ 15:19more, a greater or additional amount or degree
Captain Midnight: how many repetitions is enough for you to pick up on a frankly simple concept?
It only took once, but you kept defending “more government inevitably means less freedom,” when you meant “too much government inevitably means less freedom” or “a government that continues to increase in size inevitably means less freedom”.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 15:35Captain Midnight: how many repetitions is enough for you to pick up on a frankly simple concept?
Z: It only took once, but you kept defending “more government inevitably means less freedom,” when you meant “too much government inevitably means less freedom” or “a government that continues to increase in size inevitably means less freedom”.
As I see it, my use of the word “eventually” made the concept clear to you while the multiple repetitions about increasing and increasing and increasing laws and regulations which should have made the point clear were as incomprehensible as the “muah waah waah” of adults in Charlie Brown videos.
- Captain Midnight | 03/04/2014 @ 16:03Captain Midnight: As I see it, my use of the word “eventually” made the concept clear
Inevitably could means eventually. So, the U.S. Constitution, which constitutes more government than the Articles of Confederation, could inevitably mean less freedom. In any case, you have clarified your position.
The other issue you raised is whether governments can ever reduce their scope. While society has become more complex, some complexity in government may be inevitable, but we did provide a counterexample.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2014 @ 16:30Inevitably could means eventually
It could means that, could it? Thanks, Popeye! Want to try again at typing a coherent statement?
While society has become more complex, some complexity in government may be inevitable, but we did provide a counterexample.
The problem, of course, is that your counterexample is retarded. Government as a percentage of GDP is a meaningless figure, especially when you’re talking about the freedom of its citizens. The Roman Empire could’ve spent 100% of its GDP on monitoring its subjects, and they’d still be more free than those of a modern state spending a fraction as much. Context matters. Of course, if y’all could understand that, you’d be a lot less shitty at arguing….
- Severian | 03/04/2014 @ 17:17[…] time to ask questions like this, I think, because force and freedom are measurable and rudimentary concepts. It’s true that “right and wrong” are not […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 03/22/2014 @ 10:02