Christian hotel owners penalised for turning away a gay couple

[GGT]

Sure, if you are talking about the government I would agree. If you are talking equal protection under the law, I would agree. We aren't talking about the government or equal protection under the law though, we are talking about acts that occur on private property. Your right not to be discriminated against does not trump the property owners right to dictate what legal activities occur on his or her property.

But we ARE talking about all those things.

It'd be one thing if you used an example of "acts" like smoking or drinking....legal activities (with limits). A privately owned (but open to the public) restaurant or tavern should be able to post a sign saying "This establishment allows cigar, pipe and cigarette smoking, and consumption of beer, wine and spirits". A totally dry county, or banning smoking in ALL commercial areas are examples of an overreaching government, dictating what happens on "private property". I assume we agree on that.

But it wouldn't be acceptable to see a sign posted saying, "This establishment allows Whites only."

[Enoch the Red]

But we ARE talking about all those things.

It'd be one thing if you used an example of "acts" like smoking or drinking....legal activities (with limits). A privately owned (but open to the public) restaurant or tavern should be able to post a sign saying "This establishment allows cigar, pipe and cigarette smoking, and consumption of beer, wine and spirits". A totally dry county, or banning smoking in ALL commercial areas are examples of an overreaching government, dictating what happens on "private property". I assume we agree on that.

But it wouldn't be acceptable to see a sign posted saying, "This establishment allows Whites only."

Why not? Is it acceptable to have somebody be free to say racist things?

[GGT]

Why not? Is it acceptable to have somebody be free to say racist things?

You haven't yet convinced me why saying racists things is the same as refusing service based on racism.

[Enoch the Red]

You haven't yet convinced me why saying racists things is the same as refusing service based on racism.

So you believe that you have a right to any service, anywhere, any time?

[GGT]

So you believe that you have a right to any service, anywhere, any time?

I believe I have the right to enter any Open-to-the-Public establishment regardless of my gender, skin color, or religion. *And sexual orientation or marital status* Absolutely. Why shouldn't I have that expectation in a free and open society? Should I need a fricking smart phone app to tell me where I can buy gas, a sandwich, or a motel room.....based on whom they will do business with?

[Enoch the Red]

I believe I have the right to enter any Open-to-the-Public establishment regardless of my gender, skin color, or religion. *And sexual orientation or marital status* Absolutely. Why shouldn't I have that expectation in a free and open society? Should I need a fricking smart phone app to tell me where I can buy gas, a sandwich, or a motel room.....based on whom they will do business with?

I believe I have the privilege to enter onto somebody else's property, and only the right to stay under the conditions they set. I have no illusions about my rights once on that property, and I don't believe they are as extensive as you seem to.

Ninety-nine times out of one-hundred I believe people are in business to make money, to put food on their table for their families, not pursue a radical ideological agenda. So, I ask you again, do you really believe it is out of fear of a laughably improbable lawsuit that keeps people from taking the money of women, men, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, gays, lesbians, heterosexuals and transgendered individuals (even the bigots, racists and misanthropes amongst us) or do you think it's a desire to do what a business does best?

[Draco]

^^Nicely said.

By the way, Draco, what's up with the ^^ in your posts?

Just to indicate that I'm addressing you

[GGT]

I believe I have the privilege to enter onto somebody else's property, and only the right to stay under the conditions they set. I have no illusions about my rights once on that property, and I don't believe they are as extensive as you seem to.

Then you set your expectations pretty low, IMO. How many gas cans do you carry around while you travel American highways, just in case the gas stations don't serve white men? Probably not many, since white men are rarely refused service. Anywhere. Wouldn't you be surprised if every gas station turned out to be owned by....oh, let's make it fun and say every gas station for 500 miles is owned and operated by Amazon lesbian women. They only let other lesbian women buy their gas. Or their male companions. Too bad, so sad, for you and your empty gas tank.

Ninety-nine times out of one-hundred I believe people are in business to make money, to put food on their table for their families, not pursue a radical ideological agenda. So, I ask you again, do you really believe it is out of fear of a laughably improbable lawsuit that keeps people from taking the money of women, men, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, gays, lesbians, heterosexuals and transgendered individuals (even the bigots, racists and misanthropes amongst us) or do you think it's a desire to do what a business does best?

In urban metropolis areas, or rural small towns? In hospitals or schools? At diners or apartment complexes? Northern or Southern? As employer or employee?

You see, it's a pretty broad area. As our world gets "smaller" and more global, eventually none of this ideological agenda will matter as much as making money and feeding families. Sure, business knows how to do business and make money, and turning certain people away doesn't make much business sense. However, I also recognize that racism, homophobia, and bigotry have also led to white flight, gentrification, suburban sprawl, and niche business catering to.....Christian-Married-Only-Hotels.

[Draco]

^^But hasn't discrimination (and racism) always stemmed from (big) government? Haven't they, in majority cases, been the ones endorsing it? Even creating stupid legislations to support it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws (there are some disgusting photos on that page)
How do Western governments expect 'tolerance' of other ethnicities, sexuality etc when they were behind the wheel all the time?

[Enoch the Red]

Then you set your expectations pretty low, IMO. How many gas cans do you carry around while you travel American highways, just in case the gas stations don't serve white men? Probably not many, since white men are rarely refused service. Anywhere. Wouldn't you be surprised if every gas station turned out to be owned by....oh, let's make it fun and say every gas station for 500 miles is owned and operated by Amazon lesbian women. They only let other lesbian women buy their gas. Or their male companions. Too bad, so sad, for you and your empty gas tank.

Yep, that's about right. Then I walk to the next exit, (or generally across the street) and make sure their competitors get my business.

You see, it's a pretty broad area. As our world gets "smaller" and more global, eventually none of this ideological agenda will matter as much as making money and feeding families. Sure, business knows how to do business and make money, and turning certain people away doesn't make much business sense. However, I also recognize that racism, homophobia, and bigotry have also led to white flight, gentrification, suburban sprawl, and niche business catering to.....Christian-Married-Only-Hotels.

And this all of this happened in spite of your vaunted legislation, no?

[GGT]

^^But hasn't discrimination (and racism) always stemmed from (big) government? Haven't they, in majority cases, been the ones endorsing it? Even creating stupid legislations to support it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws (there are some disgusting photos on that page)
How do Western governments expect 'tolerance' of other ethnicities, sexuality etc when they were behind the wheel all the time?

Racism, historically, isn't a result of Big Gummint. Has modern government tried to intervene to correct age-old discriminations? Sure. Has it failed as much as succeeded? Depends on which racial group or era of time, I suppose.

Yep, that's about right. Then I walk to the next exit, (or generally across the street) and make sure their competitors get my business.

Bullshit. You're using today's standards, which includes anti-discrimination commerce laws, to claim it's so easy to be served....that all you have to do is cross the street! I'm not sure you have any idea why our equal opportunity laws or civil rights laws came to fruition in the first place.

And this all of this happened in spite of your vaunted legislation, no?

MY vaunted legislation? Let me ask you this, Enoch. Do you believe our constitution is a living document open to interpretation? Do you believe that interpretation is contextual over time?

[Draco]

Racism, historically, isn't a result of Big Gummint. Has modern government tried to intervene to correct age-old discriminations? Sure. Has it failed as much as succeeded? Depends on which racial group or era of time, I suppose.

Sure, we can make a historical case on both sides of the story. Just that the government has been the source too.

[GGT]

Sure, we can make a historical case on both sides of the story. Just that the government (and I'd say religion, but lets not get into that) has been the source in many cases.

Organized government (and organized religion) are infants compared to the history of mankind. People have always made protective social groups and hierarchies, that's the ancient Old Man among all societies. Thousands of years ago it was based on survival, and which tribe could survive. That's a pretty hard evolutionary instinct to shake. Look how long it took for inter-racial marriage to be acceptable, and still many cultures don't accept it even in the 21st century.

[Nessus]

Doesn't this quote mean anything to people these days: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?
And it's not just for the freedom of the press, but it encompasses all spheres of expression, including property and having the right to discriminate on your own property. I use to be on the whole "Free medical health care, no discrimination etc" bandwagon, but I didn't understand those concepts wholly at the time, and it wasn't until that I read into them that I realised at whose expense such programs would be. Then there was this crazy socialist girl who approached me at university once, asking me whether I was 'left or right wing' and at the time I told her that I was in the centre and she seemed offended that I didn't say left wing. Then she started talking about what her views were and what really put me off was her saying the following "It's ok for the government to tax wealthy people/companies at a higher rate because they have enough money as it is. What are they going to do with all of it anyway?" I was genuinely revolted that a person could advocate such a thing, as to give themselves the right to say what another person can and cannot do with their money (and then she went into a rant about how the US is helping Israel and crap). That was the turning point for me when I decided that it's either one or the other, you can't draw a fine line in such matters. I don't see how some of you advocate same sex marriage, yet would deny someone the right to their property. You either support big government, and put up with the crap that they generate, or support small government and continue on with your daily life.

Except you don't explain, at all, what it is that's crap about big government. You just point out you're morally offended by non-flat taxation, and possibly socialists and women. That's great. Not gonna change anyone's mind though, and hardly the high point of debate on this forum. If I told you I'm morally offended by the existence of black people, you wouldn't rush out to join the KKK, would you? Yet that is about the height of argument you've deigned to grace this forum with. To say that taxing rich people is on par, morally, with denying faggots the right to marry is absurd. I do find it amusing though that you got uppity when I accused you of being a libertarian before, and here you are saying right to property is akin to the right to life. And all the usual fallacies that come after.

[Enoch the Red]

Bullshit. You're using today's standards, which includes anti-discrimination commerce laws, to claim it's so easy to be served....that all you have to do is cross the street! I'm not sure you have any idea why our equal opportunity laws or civil rights laws came to fruition in the first place.

Sure I'm using todays standards. I've asked this question several times of you and haven't received an answer: do you really believe it is out of fear of a laughably improbable lawsuit that keeps people from taking the money of women, men, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, gays, lesbians, heterosexuals and transgendered individuals (even the bigots, racists and misanthropes amongst us) or do you think it's a desire to do what a business does best?

Are true, dyed-in-the-wool racists really so easily swayed?

MY vaunted legislation? Let me ask you this, Enoch. Do you believe our constitution is a living document open to interpretation? Do you believe that interpretation is contextual over time?

Absolutely not. I believe the constitution has, built into it, the opportunity to be changed and modified, and it does not need to be interpreted by judicial activists looking to circumvent the law. If you don't like something in the constitution, put it to a vote and change it legally, don't try to twist the law to meet your own ends.

[Draco]

Organized government (and organized religion) are infants compared to the history of mankind. People have always made protective social groups and hierarchies, that's the ancient Old Man among all societies. Thousands of years ago it was based on survival, and which tribe could survive. That's a pretty hard evolutionary instinct to shake. Look how long it took for inter-racial marriage to be acceptable, and still many cultures don't accept it even in the 21st century.

Exactly, and just as those primitive social groups survived in their own way, people should be left to their own will today, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of another person (and by rights, I don't mean having the right to force yourself onto another persons property).

Except you don't explain, at all, what it is that's crap about big government.

I can't stand the cynical, high horse manner that you're addressing me, but I'll go ahead and respond.
I thought it was obvious what I found 'crap' about big government from my posts but I'll sum it up in one line: primarily because their track record shows that they're ok with limiting the rights of the individual by dictating what they can do with their body, their property, basically their lives. They create a society of dependence upon them (the government) and continue to shorten the leash that they've strapped around all of us.

You just point out you're morally offended by non-flat taxation, and possibly socialists and women. That's great. Not gonna change anyone's mind though, and hardly the high point of debate on this forum. If I told you I'm morally offended by the existence of black people, you wouldn't rush out to join the KKK, would you? Yet that is about the height of argument you've deigned to grace this forum with.

Either you haven't been reading my posts, or you just really like to talk in a condescending manner. Grow up.

To say that taxing rich people is on par, morally, with denying faggots the right to marry is absurd.

*Taxing rich people at a higher rate, please don't twist my argument. And yes it is on par with denying gay people the right to marry. On the one hand, you're forcing someone to give up more of their money because they happen to earn more, thus in a way, you are marginalising them, discriminating because of their income. Yet on the other hand you're also discriminating gay people by denying them the right that any straight couple has.

[GGT]

Sure I'm using todays standards. I've asked this question several times of you and haven't received an answer: do you really believe it is out of fear of a laughably improbable lawsuit that keeps people from taking the money of women, men, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, gays, lesbians, heterosexuals and transgendered individuals (even the bigots, racists and misanthropes amongst us) or do you think it's a desire to do what a business does best?

Are true, dyed-in-the-wool racists really so easily swayed?

Sorry, I thought I'd answered that a while ago. No, I don't think they are acting out of fear of a law. No, I don't think a law can change racist attitudes.

But that's not the point of the laws. Anti-discrimination laws are meant to protect minority rights and put them on an equal footing with majority actors. They're not meant to punish others.

Absolutely not. I believe the constitution has, built into it, the opportunity to be changed and modified, and it does not need to be interpreted by judicial activists looking to circumvent the law. If you don't like something in the constitution, put it to a vote and change it legally, don't try to twist the law to meet your own ends.

It can be changed by vote, so it's a dynamic document. If it can have amendments, so it's a living document. Interpretation by judges doesn't necessarily mean activists are looking to circumvent the law. Plenty of SCOTUS cases have been contextual over time. The founding fathers could never have imagined regulating the skies, or unseen frequency waves in the sky, let alone something like computers and satellites. At one time, women could not vote, and blacks were 3/5 of a white man.

[Nessus]

I thought it was obvious what I found 'crap' about big government from my posts but I'll sum it up in one line: primarily because their track record shows that they're ok with limiting the rights of the individual by dictating what they can do with their body, their property, basically their lives. They create a society of dependence upon them (the government) and continue to shorten the leash that they've strapped around all of us.

Of course they're okay with limiting your rights. That is the basis of the social contract, and the reason we have governments to begin with. Without a government, daily life is a competition between who has the biggest stick to beat others with. It's the government's job to tell you what you can and can't do to other citizens (and what citizens under other governments can do to you), and back that with force if need be. You can't murder your neighbour without some fear of consequence.

The crux of the question is how much the government can do. Can it force you to work for it? Can it force you to give up your children, your own life and body, can it force you into institutions where you are brutalized and raped? Western society says yes. Slave labour was more common in the USSR, and you have to hurt someone or do drugs in the US to get forced into it, but it's a common practice. What I am asking from you is some kind of reasoning to support your idea that the government should not be able to do these things, or dig into your pay-check every month. Or explain which motives for digging into your pay check each month you find acceptable. Basically anything even slightly deeper committed than "property rights!!!", which are not universally agreed as the main goal of human existence. This is called having a discussion with someone working from different premises, it seems clear you don't have much experience but thankfully I am a patient person!

*Taxing rich people at a higher rate, please don't twist my argument. And yes it is on par with denying gay people the right to marry. On the one hand, you're forcing someone to give up more of their money because they happen to earn more, thus in a way, you are marginalising them, discriminating because of their income. Yet on the other hand you're also discriminating gay people by denying them the right that any straight couple has.

As we discussed with Loki, a Creationist can't really perform seriously in some areas of scientific discussion and research. So they're discriminated against based on their thoughts alone. Someone unable to master basic algebra cannot participate in a question on analytic number theory, they're discriminated against because of their low intelligence. I cannot jump very high or lift very heavy weights, so I would expect to be discriminated against when choosing front-line soldiers, or policemen.

We can show very clearly that a human being only needs so much energy for daily sustenance. We can equally well show that human beings cannot in fact consume more than a said amount of energy per day. It has been convincingly argued that there is a saturation point of wealth after which further wealth does not make one significantly happier. It has also been shown that the very wealthy benefit far further, per head, from all the associated benefits participating in a taxing society with a government conveys. And it has also been shown that progressing towards flatter taxation always hurts the least wealthy the most. This is common sense, as well, but that is often quite misleading. Therefore it seems, looking at it from a tree, that society has a vested interest in discriminating against people who earn several times that which the poorest people do. You have not deigned to hold up one single argument against this except for your apparently axiomatic approach to property rights. I cannot accept them as an axiom to the degree you seem to. So it would be polite to at least try and argue in defence of your position, rather than repeating "property rights property rights" and sticking your fingers in your ears until you are blue in the face.

[Enoch the Red]

Sorry, I thought I'd answered that a while ago. No, I don't think they are acting out of fear of a law. No, I don't think a law can change racist attitudes.

But that's not the point of the laws. Anti-discrimination laws are meant to protect minority rights and put them on an equal footing with majority actors. They're not meant to punish others.

So, if a racist isn't acting out of fear, or acting on the law at all, how is the law having any positive impact? Are you talking about the the exceedingly rare cases where if the offended party has the desire and means to file a lawsuit, they can?

It can be changed by vote, so it's a dynamic document. If it can have amendments, so it's a living document. Interpretation by judges doesn't necessarily mean activists are looking to circumvent the law. Plenty of SCOTUS cases have been contextual over time. The founding fathers could never have imagined regulating the skies, or unseen frequency waves in the sky, let alone something like computers and satellites. At one time, women could not vote, and blacks were 3/5 of a white man.

That's not what a living document means as it relates to the constitution, GGT. When talking about the constitution, considering it a living document denotes believing it can be reinterpreted without the law itself being modified. By your redefinition no one could disagree with the living document interpretation, as our legal system was designed specifically to be changed and amended. That's simply not what it means though.

[Draco]

Of course they're okay with limiting your rights. That is the basis of the social contract, and the reason we have governments to begin with. Without a government, daily life is a competition between who has the biggest stick to beat others with. It's the government's job to tell you what you can and can't do to other citizens (and what citizens under other governments can do to you), and back that with force if need be. You can't murder your neighbour without some fear of consequence.

Of course, just that the government has extended its say in the personal matters of its citizens.

The crux of the question is how much the government can do. Can it force you to work for it? Can it force you to give up your children, your own life and body, can it force you into institutions where you are brutalized and raped? Western society says yes. Slave labour was more common in the USSR,

Yes and the type of political system that you seem to be ok with really worked out in the end for them, along with the rest of Eastern Europe.

What I am asking from you is some kind of reasoning to support your idea that the government should not be able to do these things, or dig into your pay-check every month. Or explain which motives for digging into your pay check each month you find acceptable. Basically anything even slightly deeper committed than "property rights!!!", which are not universally agreed as the main goal of human existence.

What further reasoning do you want than the fact that it's my private life? I can't make it any clearer than that. It makes absolute sense to me, it's as simple as knowing 1+1=2. The fact that it is my own life, the life of the person across the street, yours, and anyone else: what right should the government have in interfering in my private life unless I am denying another persons right to their own life (as in threatening to kill them for example, or forcing them against their will)?

And property rights was the topic of this thread, so naturally I'd be advocating them. And what I find acceptable for the government to tax its citizens on: to protect and guarantee the liberties of it's citizens through the use of the police force, army and the courts. I'm undecided about infrastructure since I'm assuming it would be a messy business to privatise roads, and how you'd go about to pay to use them, but having the Electronic tolls with the RFID tags would simplify things.

We can show very clearly that a human being only needs so much energy for daily sustenance. We can equally well show that human beings cannot in fact consume more than a said amount of energy per day. It has been convincingly argued that there is a saturation point of wealth after which further wealth does not make one significantly happier. It has also been shown that the very wealthy benefit far further, per head, from all the associated benefits participating in a taxing society with a government conveys. And it has also been shown that progressing towards flatter taxation always hurts the least wealthy the most.

Ok, but trying to appeal to my emotions won't convince me.

You have not deigned to hold up one single argument against this except for your apparently axiomatic approach to property rights. I cannot accept them as an axiom to the degree you seem to. So it would be polite to at least try and argue in defence of your position, rather than repeating "property rights property rights" and sticking your fingers in your ears until you are blue in the face.

And your entire argument is based on you caring for the well being of others. Why do you? Your signature makes it clear that you're an atheist, yet you endorse a political system that, at it's very core, is identical to that of any mainstream religion: caring about the welfare of others. Doing what's 'best' for the group, rather than focusing on the individual. So you can't talk when you say to me "You have not deigned to hold up one single argument against this except for your apparently axiomatic approach to property rights." just that your approach is to think about the masses, rather than the individual. I don't care about the well being of xyz person living 20km north of me, unless I'm somehow related to them by friendship, family or through some sort of business. So why should I endorse a system that advocates what has controlled (ie, religion) the Western world for how long now?

[Aimless]

Your paycheck isn't just your private life, it's a small piece of your entire civilization. Everything you do outside of your own head touches on the rest of your civilisation.

Private life

[Aimless]

And your entire argument is based on you caring for the well being of others. Why do you? Your signature makes it clear that you're an atheist, yet you endorse a political system that, at it's very core, is identical to that of any mainstream religion: caring about the welfare of others. Doing what's 'best' for the group, rather than focusing on the individual. So you can't talk when you say to me "You have not deigned to hold up one single argument against this except for your apparently axiomatic approach to property rights." just that your approach is to think about the masses, rather than the individual. I don't care about the well being of xyz person living 20km north of me, unless I'm somehow related to them by friendship, family or through some sort of business. So why should I endorse a system that advocates what has controlled (ie, religion) the Western world for how long now?

Okay, I see, you're arguing that atheists should for the sake of consistency be nihilistic selfish people Why, exactly?

But let's say we are. Why on earth should atheists care for your so-called "private life"?

As for denying others the right to life, what exactly do you think you'd be doing if you did away with healthcare and other important aspects of welfare? Oh, right, I see, you wouldn't be holding a gun to their heads... it wouldn't be forcible, as the jargon goes in the rape thread.

[Aimless]

Doing what's 'best' for the group, rather than focusing on the individual. So you can't talk when you say to me "You have not deigned to hold up one single argument against this except for your apparently axiomatic approach to property rights." just that your approach is to think about the masses, rather than the individual.

Look, you need to be clear about one thing. When you refer to "the individual", you're referring specifically to "the individual who [imagines he can] fend very well for himself without the assistance of--or any regard for--the society within which he exists". You are not referring to the individual who can't fend for himself. For some reason, the first individual is more important in your mind. For other reasons, the large number of individuals in the second group are important to me. For some reason you don't want to preserve the rights of many individuals, specifically those whose rights most need defending, and I don't get that at all

[Draco]

Okay, I see, you're arguing that atheists should for the sake of consistency be nihilistic selfish people Why, exactly?

Please don't twist my argument. I didn't even use the word 'nihilistic', so don't introduce it to suit your own claim. As for 'selfish', we're all selfish in our own way. Why do you work? Why do you study? Why do you seek to have a girlfriend/boyfriend? Do you decide to wake up today because someone else wants to or because you do?

But let's say we are. Why on earth should atheists care for your so-called "private life"?

Since we're not, I won't continue this.

As for denying others the right to life, what exactly do you think you'd be doing if you did away with healthcare and other important aspects of welfare? Oh, right, I see, you wouldn't be holding a gun to their heads... it wouldn't be forcible, as the jargon goes in the rape thread.

How does having the right to your own life also constitute the right to having free healthcare and ready access to welfare? I could just as easily use the '' smiley on you then.

Look, you need to be clear about one thing. When you refer to "the individual", you're referring specifically to "the individual who [imagines he can] fend very well for himself without the assistance of--or any regard for--the society within which he exists". You are not referring to the individual who can't fend for himself. For some reason, the first individual is more important in your mind. For other reasons, the large number of individuals in the second group are important to me. For some reason you don't want to preserve the rights of many individuals, specifically those whose rights most need defending, and I don't get that at all

I'm advocating for individual rights, how can you say I don't want to preserve the right of many individuals? Unless by 'rights' you mean the right to healthcare and welfare?
I know that there are people who really cannot help their situation, for example they may be severely disabled. I'm leaning towards saying that it's 'ok' for the government to provide assistance to extreme cases, but then I wouldn't be consistent with my reasoning and if I ok that, then it opens the door for the government to provide further assistance to those who really don't need it and the leash returns. Then again there are plenty of private charities out there, but I'm not that familiar with them to make a case.

[Illusions]

Draco your reasoning for why you want government the way you do is neither logical, consistent, nor well thought out. You say things about why government shouldn't be one way, and give examples, but then completely ignore or don't think to include other areas that you voiced approval of where those examples would also apply. To be very blunt your arguments essentially boil down to "The government can do bad things" , "People have rights" , "Government is too big". Well thanks for those vague statements, but they don't illustrate or defend your position very well. Your reply to Nessus also blisteringly illustrates this lack or thought or application of logic.

[Draco]

Draco your reasoning for why you want government the way you do is neither logical, consistent, nor well thought out. You say things about why government shouldn't be one way, and give examples, but then completely ignore or don't think to include other areas that you voiced approval of where those examples would also apply. To be very blunt your arguments essentially boil down to "The government can do bad things" , "People have rights" , "Government is too big". Well thanks for those vague statements, but they don't illustrate or defend your position very well. Your reply to Nessus also blisteringly illustrates this lack or thought or application of logic.

Um ok, thanks for pointing that out I guess? I know I haven't properly established my argument/claim, but I was merely replying to queries and other peoples views. I made the mistake in assuming that some of you would understand what I'm saying when I post it, but it's had the opposite effect where I'm being misunderstood. And as for vague statements, your post is completely vague, since you never included examples from my posts through out the entire thread of where and how my reasoning is neither logical, consistent nor well thought out? Could you elaborate on that so I could make things clearer?

[Aimless]

How does having the right to your own life also constitute the right to having free healthcare and ready access to welfare?

If I will die without help, and that help is available, and you deny me that help, then you have denied me the right to life.






Maybe you shouldn't feel so compelled to be consistent with flawed reasoning. It's okay to not be consistent, provided the outcomes are good. Being consistent isn't in and of itself a good outcome. Some people are consistently evil, for example.

[Aimless]

I'm advocating for individual rights, how can you say I don't want to preserve the right of many individuals? Unless by 'rights' you mean the right to healthcare and welfare?

Actually, I meant what I said:

When you refer to "the individual", you're referring specifically to "the individual who [imagines he can] fend very well for himself without the assistance of--or any regard for--the society within which he exists". You are not referring to the individual who can't fend for himself. For some reason, the first individual is more important in your mind. For other reasons, the large number of individuals in the second group are important to me. For some reason you don't want to preserve the rights of many individuals, specifically those whose rights most need defending

[Enoch the Red]

If I will die without help, and that help is available, and you deny me that help, then you have denied me the right to life.

Why shouldn't you be tried as an accessory to murder then?

[Aimless]

Why shouldn't you be tried as an accessory to murder then?

Because I can't murder myself under coercion.