I've only asked you questions I don't know the answers to. If I take everything you said literally and don't allow you to contradict yourself, these would be my predicted answers:
- Scenario 1A: Yes, you would ban infertile people, old people, etc. from marrying. (Edit: The reason is in this scenario, you said you would ban marriage that was inconducive to the goal of reproduction).
- Scenario 1B: Yes, you would ban discrimination by private businesses. (Edit: The reason is you said you would sign bills into laws based solely on public opinion polls).
- Scenario 2: Yes, you would vote Yes on a proposition that bans opposite-sex marriage. (Edit: The reason is because this scenario is nearly identical to one you answered about same-sex marriage and how you would get rid of same-sex marriage if only to minimize the existence of legal marriage of any kind).
Am I right?
Close. Yes, if marriage is supposed to be an explicit agreement between the state and the couple to produce offspring in exchange for tax benefits, unless the couple was unaware of their infertility at the time of signing said agreement, which is exactly what I meant by "calculated risk". The word "risk" entails an investment with an uncertain return. This is not the legal definition in the U.S. though, so it's a side note in the discussion. No, I would not ban any form of discrimination in any private business as the rules of employment are subject to a contract signed by two consenting parties (the employer and the employee), my job is only to oversee that both sides fulfil their sides of the bargain as well as ensure that the bargain itself is not in violation of the pre-existing laws, for instance that it doesn't entail slave labour. Also a no in the event of denial of service, however I may or may not lean on the side of personally boycotting the business depending on the reason for refusing service - "no shirt, no service" and "no service for negros" are two very different kinds of refusals, the former being reasonable, the latter being blatantly racist. No, I would not "vote to ban" same-sex marriage as in the example same-sex marriage hasn't been codified yet, so there's nothing to ban. I would, however, listen to the people and enact their will accordingly.
You seem to be conflating no force and warranted force.
I don't.
Which "inalienable rights" have I suggested should be trampled on?
The fourth ammendment, for one. If I have a cake that I don't want to sell and the government puts a gun to my head and then, for all intents and purposes, seizes control of my property by deciding what to do with it for me, forcing me to sell that cake to someone I would not willingly sell it to, it has trampled on my inalienable rights. I get to decide who I sell my property to, not the government. The government cannot and should not coerce a non-consenting party into a business arrangement, because at that point it's not business, it's eminent domain.
We're having several conversations at once, so I don't blame you, but by going on about how the police exist to uphold the law, you didn't actually respond to anything I said about people's conflicting rights.
Let's be clear here. What I call well-being is probably what you call well-being. What I call policy conducive to well-being is probably what you call oppression, and I would disagree with you.
You are entitled to disagree with me or to fail to draw a conclusion from my answer.
The government picks and chooses between conflicting rights all the time. Take my example of free speech vs. creating a public hazard.
You defined yelling "fire" in a public setting for the purposes of causing panic as free speech, not me. Free speech equals the freedom to express opinion without being restrained by the government. Yelling "fire" does not constitute expressing an opinion, so it doesn't constitute free speech. If it's determined that the action was illegal, it should be punished to the full extent of the law. Your argument was poor, and you probably knew that when you made it.
In other words, governments very often restrict what people can do. Anti-nudity laws restrict my ability to streak at night in order to benefit other people from, presumably, becoming too infatuated with my good-looking body to function. The government chose their rights over mine. There is a fine line between this and what most people would call authoritarianism.
You never asked me if I approve of such laws. I don't mind you streaking - I'm not threatened by your genitalia, just don't catch a cold because I won't pay for your medical expenses.
Quotes like these remind me to not become complacent with Trump and his actual tendencies toward authoritarianism.
He's a beacon of hope, a shining example for us all and a national treasure. Praise kek.
Proportionally taxing income levels based on what proportionately affects them isn't punishment. It's fair, not to mention efficient.
There's nothing proportionate about having different tax brackets for different kinds of earners. Income tax is theft, it punishes people for working and thus discourages labour, but since it exists and I can't get rid of it (even though a value-added tax would be a better alternative), everyone should pay the same percentage of their income with no special treatment.
I would have to know what you're specifically referring to before I can respond, but I wouldn't argue that these groups are the most advantaged in society.
Women win the majority of child custody cases and are the de facto recipients of the most child support due to a persistent bias in the court system, they are exempted from draft, they hold 100% of reproductive rights as they can choose to keep or abort their children without the consent of the father, they face lower standards for public service, for instance in the police force or in the army and, thanks to Affirmative Action, they are more likely to enroll in college, more likely to graduate and more likely to find employment. The case is very similar with many minorities - independent studies show that different ethnicities need to score differently in order to enroll to the same college.
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco...n-college-admissions-nobody-is-talking-about/
If as a black American I can score 450 points less than my Asian friend and still end up in the same course because our Asian founding fathers saw it fit to enact Affirmative Action and help me out a "little bit" then I would call that Black privilege. We can't talk about a level playing field when your enrollment is not dependant on your scholastic achievements, but on the colour of your skin, specifically because some idiot in Washington figured that diversity quotas are a good idea.
If one chooses to have a business that serves the public, then that business needs to serve the public. That business gets all of the benefits of serving the public and also benefits directly from tax dollars that the public has spent (e.g. roads, protection, etc.). Businesses are subject to regulation by the government if they're going to serve the public and use public resources. A business that serves food to the public has to abide by regulation that makes sure the food isn't going to poison the public, for example. We decided as a country that a business' right to poison people does not outweigh the public's right to not be poisoned. A business' right to discriminate does not outweigh the right of a population to not be discriminated against.
The idea that businesses exist to serve the public is fallacious - businesses exist to exchange goods and services between consenting parties. A business owner is not a public servant. I'm well-aware that rampant regulation stifles the operation of private businesses, what's your point? Besides, many companies don't even do business with the public - there are many industries in which companies only conduct business with other companies, not private individuals. If you base your argument on a premise that is untrue, it crumbles pretty easily. It's also ridiculous to assert that a business owes the government any form of servitude just because there's a road in front of it - the business pays taxes for that road to be there, it'd be odd if it *wasn't* provided with one.
Nobody is being forced to exchange goods and services. If one can't handle anti-discrimination laws, one doesn't have to exchange goods and services at all.
Whether said laws should be on the books at all is another story.
"Under threat of violence" is a buzz phrase you've already admitted is nonsense when we're talking about upholding laws.
If you don't think certain regulations are enforced under the threat of violence, try not following them.
I know you do. Nobody's perfect.
That's why I turn a blind eye to your strong aversion to freedom.
like a 250 dollar kit back when DDR4 was Intel only
