Let's have the Presidential debate we actually want, not what we got

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Explorer, Oct 14, 2016.

  1. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,354
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    I want a debate on not just the issues, but on solutions which have hisorical evidence to support any claims that they will work. I'm not interested in talking about the specific candidates, although I'm sure different positions advanced will match those of various candidates while opposing the positions of another.

    My first big idea: I think government should avoid imposing one individual's or group's beliefs upon others in their private lives, and should only enact legislation which prevents those who want to impose negative effects arising from their religious beliefs from having government protection or licensing to do so.

    So...

    No religious authorities forced to marry someone they don't wish to.

    No business licensing, and revocation of existing licensing, for those who discriminate against customers based on their private religious beliefs.

    The state has an interest in maintiaining equality of treatment for all citizens, and not having any eforcement action (like pulling licenses) would render this proposal worthless, so enforcement must exist and must be used.

    In this way, a member of the Worldwide Church of the Creator (a white supremacist church) could say whatever they want in their private life, but couldn't run a business which actually discriminated against blacks.

    And, as has been the case, there will be no requirement that, say, Amish adults would have to work in microchip fabrication, or that sincere Hindus must run a steak packaging system. If they do choose to go into such businesses, it would not be reasonable to expect an accommodation of being able to refuse use of modern technology in the first case, or that they be apble to not work with beef in the second. Similarly, wanting to run a business whoch hires or serves the public, but which which discriminates as a religious belief, rules out a license.

    Any balanced arguments against this, whh do not nvolve special pleading?

    What other ideas would you want to see advanced?
     
  2. fps

    fps Kit

    Messages:
    2,828
    Likes Received:
    90
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Location:
    Brighton
  3. big_aug

    big_aug SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    974
    Likes Received:
    38
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Location:
    Ohio
    This is America. Ain't no body got no time for no evidence.
     
  4. ncfiala

    ncfiala Silence you bastard

    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    315
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Location:
    Minnesota
    It seems very strange to me that you say

    "I think government should avoid imposing one individual's or group's beliefs upon others in their private lives"

    yet you think that a business owner should not have the right to hire/fire and serve who he wishes. I think a private business owner should be able to hire/fire and serve who he wants. If someone doesn't like it they can choose to work or patronize somewhere else. Do I think this because I'm in favor of racism? No. I think this because I'm in favor of the government staying out of people's business.
     
  5. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,354
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    First off, and purely to clarify, I would like to restate your final sentence.

    I'm in favor of the government staying out of people's private matters.

    As soon as one is hiring, firing, or engaging in business, that's not a private matter. Instead, one is now dealing with the interaction of at least two individuals, and of their associated rights.

    Would you agree? I'm assuming not, as you already listed "serve who he wants" as a reasonable accommodation the government should uphold against the public interest, but I'm not interested in putting words in your mouth and would rather hear it from you.

    Just to give you a heads up, I'm planning on bringing up business licensure as a legitimate governmental interest, again using the standard of being in the public interest. Illnesses from restaurants with poor sanitation practices, deaths due to shoddy goods, and so on will make it difficult if not impossible to argue against that government interest in non-private matters.

    So, would you agree that there is a dividing line between someone's private matters and someone's business?
     
  6. HeHasTheJazzHands

    HeHasTheJazzHands greg rulz ok

    Messages:
    20,711
    Likes Received:
    1,984
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Edit: a day later and I reAlized I posted in the wrong thread
     
  7. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,354
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    @ncfiala - It seems very strange to me that you were hoping to make an inconsistent point without exploring the underlying logic. If you decide to do more than a drive-by in Politics & Current Events next time, I'll be interested in seeing if you can do better.
     
  8. ncfiala

    ncfiala Silence you bastard

    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    315
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Well I probably shouldn't have posted since you used the word debate and I have no interest in debating. I simply stated my opinion and I am one who feels absolutely no obligation to defend my beliefs. They are mine and I have every right to them. I have no interest in defending or explaining my beliefs or in persuading others. I will say that I'm essentially a minarchist. I'm not going to explain that either. Look it up on Wikipedia or better yet read Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia if you're interested.
     
  9. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,354
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    And that's fine.

    But here's the question... does it bother you to be inconsistent?

    You clearly wanted to point out what you perceived as inconsistency on my own advanced point, I was happy to explain how it actually is consistent.

    It was relatively easy to do so, as it will to show how your own viewpoint is showing the kind of inconsistency which was apparently objectionable. I'd normally take that as the action of someone who was concerned with getting things right, instead of just wanting to cling to something because it was the first thing which occurred to them, regardless of whether it was accurate or not.

    Anyway, again, it's absolutely fine for you to embrace that.
     
  10. ncfiala

    ncfiala Silence you bastard

    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    315
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Location:
    Minnesota
    There is nothing inconsistent about anything I said. I believe in extremely limited government so I find the kind of things you mentioned originally to be objectionable.
     
  11. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,354
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    Normally, the arguments against government which protects someone's actual rights wind up arguing that those without power will not have those rights protected.

    Even Nozick is against the violation of the rights of non-consenting others. Your source itself disagrees with you. It appears you are unaware of that inconsistency between your own position and that of your source.

    To reduce your argument to absurdity, imagine that a pharmacist belongs to the Worldwide Church of the Creator, a white supremacist church. That pharmacist decides, based on a sincere religious belief, to not dispense lifesaving antibiotics to a negro child.

    The right to equal treatment, and to not be harmed, would be violated by such a decision.

    I'm interested in hearing how you believe Nozick supports your argument, that someone should be able to discriminate against customers on the basis of religion.

    It's a very straightforward example, stripped down to only the essential elements. It will be interesting to see if you modify your previous position, especially now that your variance from Nozick is a little more clear, or if you instead argue that Nozick was actually wrong.
     
  12. vansinn

    vansinn ShredNeck into Beck

    Messages:
    2,895
    Likes Received:
    147
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Location:
    Cosmos
    @Explorer: Your thought are very interesting, and I too feel this is how many things ought to be.

    The big overwhelming problem, especially in the US, though not limited to your country, is that gang-banging banksters controls corrupted-to-be-controllable politicians and top level execs in not just the military industrial complex, but also other types of big industries.
    Even the jurisdictional system is corrupted, and a more than decent number of those sitting in government and senate are Skull'n'Bones..
    When a system is rigged so bad as to allow the banks themselves to write the laws that are intended to regulate them, and both Treasury and the privately owned Federal Reserve are corrupted to play along, it's real bad.

    I have no answers to what should be done, other than it's up to the peoples joining force to demand change.
    BTW, it's sorta the same mechanisms here in the EU, and, albeit at a more sweetened and greased level, also here in my country.
     
  13. ncfiala

    ncfiala Silence you bastard

    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    315
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Of course I don't agree with Nozick point-for-point. If you agree with someone point-for-point you aren't thinking for yourself, you're just copying someone else. As far as the pharmacist example you gave, I think the pharmacist should have the right to serve who he wants. There are other pharmacies. Someone like that would probably go out of business. The market will sort it out.

    I'm not interested in arguing with you or anyone else. Some people feel the need to defend their beliefs and persuade others to think like them. I couldn't care less.

    The bottom line is we are talking about beliefs. You may be able to argue your point and I may be able to argue mine, but those arguments start with unprovable assumptions. I have a Ph.D. in mathematics and even in mathematics there is no truth. There is only truth relative to assumptions. I could take a mathematical statement and provide a context where it is true, another where it is false, another where it is neither, and another where it is not even utterable.
     
  14. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    OK, but handing the power over to another entity to protect everyone hardly works out any better in the long run.


    1. Sadly, I am not sure how absurd that is, in the current political climate in the USA.
    2. In the practice of medicine, workers should be required to take an oath to make sure the above situation does not occur. If the pharmacist does not wish to administer medicine, then he should not be a pharmacist. Note that this does not solve the issue, though, as, instead of the pharmacist refusing to administer medicine, he would not even be there in the first place to administer medicine.
    3. In the case of a store or restaurant, I agree that it is a public place, so some scrutiny is necessary. What the enforcement of that ought to be, could be a discussion.
     
  15. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,354
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    Actually, in terms of medical services, there have been situations where someone has lost their life due to religious belief trumping a person having access to known and available medical procedures.

    Just to point this out again, you decided to post an opposing viewpoint in an open forum. You've even posted more than once. You obvious do care enough to do so.

    I'm going to disagree. Moving civil rights enforcement, including investigation and prosecution of lynchings and such, worked out much better for society than hoping the local governments in areas prone to such things might step up.

    As another example, if marriage equality had relied upon judges like Moore, or if interracial couples had been reliant upon the states to be able to marry another consenting adult, they would be worse off at this point.

    I agree with point 2, but think that combining it with point 3 makes sense. When you submit your application for a business license, you should agree to follow all laws, including non-discrimination based on unalterable characteristics (sex, orientation, race) and on religion ("No muslums aloud hear!" would be a no-no). If you wish to discriminate in your private life, have at it. If you want a government-issued license and access to the marketplace, then you can only have it if you avoid discrimination.
     
  16. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    You are talking about enforcing existing laws, though. Apples and oranges are not the same.



    We obviously have some social problems. In a healthy society, people would not want to deny service to minorities. The minorities' money is worth the same as everyone else's. Enforcing social norms through the law is a bit of a slippery slope, but, honestly, in this sort of situation, I have no qualms with having the discussion, because the thought of denying someone a service based on their skin color, gender, or whatever superficial thing is just a level of stupid that I have little desire to humour in any capacity.

    It seems that these topics come up most often when it is a baker making a cake for a same sex wedding, or someone with a gender identity which is unclear to the general public is trying to go to the bathroom. I don't hear the argument so much when it comes to a transgender priest.

    I do think that we might need to have limits. I'd like to see race/ethnicity become a general nonissue in society -

    Here's an example of something that I'd like to know what you think...

    There is a nonprofit that offers grants to small business owners who are non-white or non-male. So basically, they offer money on an exclusionary basis. I take issue with that, because if you replaced white or male with anything else, people would be really upset. I don't feel the same way about organizations who award based on inclusive criteria, for example, if a non-profit wants to award grants only to Hispanic women.

    Your thoughts?
     
  17. AxeHappy

    AxeHappy SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    232
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Guelph
    I think that if history shows us one thing about free markets, it is that they don't remotely sort themselves out and that is why they are constantly challenged and regulations are demanded by the workers who allow them to exist.

    Completely free markets suck.
     
  18. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Completely socialized markets suck even worse, though. If we are going to strike a balance, I caution people to push for a more lightly-regulated market, rather than a more strictly regulated one.

    In fact, that's what is so crazy about politics these days, it seems to be becoming more and more rare to find people who are willing to try to strike a balance with anything.
     
  19. ncfiala

    ncfiala Silence you bastard

    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    315
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I said I have no interest in defending my opinions. And I haven't. I simply stated them.

    Ultimately, arguing about politics is one of the most pointless tasks that human beings partake in. I know better than to get dragged into such conversations but I was bored in my office and had a lapse in judgement. All that comes from it is anger and I have no time in my life for that. No one's mind is ever changed. But I guess that's what they want. A populace too busy fighting with one another to realize who the true enemies are - the politicians.
     
  20. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    +1
     

Share This Page