I still am wary of the private sector.

The blessing and curse of the private sector is that the goal is only to make money. But not every institution should serve to make money, namely humanitarian ones, like prisons and universities.

Tldr - if a humanitarian group has 'for profit' in front of it, it usually isn't great.

Also I don't mind big government as much as everyone else.

Not for Profit is just a tax designation.

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 7:35:00 PM (view original):
I still am wary of the private sector.

The blessing and curse of the private sector is that the goal is only to make money. But not every institution should serve to make money, namely humanitarian ones, like prisons and universities.

Tldr - if a humanitarian group has 'for profit' in front of it, it usually isn't great.

Also I don't mind big government as much as everyone else.

You don't for public universities make money? Like CCCP, not for profit is nothing more than a tax designation. I agree with you that I would rather give to the Salvation Army or Habitat for Humanity over Goodwill any day. I trust "not for profit" charity organizations more as well. These are the choices that a free market provide us.

As far as big government, remember your history when you say this. Almost every government in history has become tyrannical at some point. The more power you give to government, the easier you make it for them.

Also, what makes you wary of the private sector?

When answering, please remember that there is a difference between capitalism and corporatism.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 7:11:00 PM (view original):
The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

I don't think we're really getting into the specifics with that case, I think we're talking more in generalities. That case actually went to SCOTUS and the baker prevailed in a narrow ruling (narrow in the scope of the opinion, not the votes, it was 7-2). It certainly didn't reverse the civil rights act. It just said that The Colorado commission acted with hostility towards the baker.

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

I say that immediately after saying that strikeout didn't show how the laws are used to discriminate. My bad. It does look that this was a case where the state did discriminate.

I still argue that laws themselves are good, just, and necessary. They just need to be applied that way.

Yes, that it why I brought up this specific case. Laws are mistreated all the time. Some laws are obviously necessary. Some are not. Anti-discrimination laws are not. They are even less necessary now than they were 45-50 years ago. I typically don't like using the calendar as justification for an argument, but in 2019 if a company truly discriminates it will be ripped to shreds with the massive number of information outlets we have today.

"They just need to be applied that way." This line sums up everything that I have been saying. The intent of the law is benevolent. It's application has proven to be shady on numerous occasions. As i've said, the market does a good job of policing true discrimination. There is not a need add unwarranted government infringement.

Any law can go bad if applied unjustly. That doesn’t mean the answer is no laws.

It’s 2019 and we still have racial discrimination. Sucks right? Unfortunately, the civil rights act is still necessary.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 8:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 7:11:00 PM (view original):
The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

I don't think we're really getting into the specifics with that case, I think we're talking more in generalities. That case actually went to SCOTUS and the baker prevailed in a narrow ruling (narrow in the scope of the opinion, not the votes, it was 7-2). It certainly didn't reverse the civil rights act. It just said that The Colorado commission acted with hostility towards the baker.

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

I say that immediately after saying that strikeout didn't show how the laws are used to discriminate. My bad. It does look that this was a case where the state did discriminate.

I still argue that laws themselves are good, just, and necessary. They just need to be applied that way.

Yes, that it why I brought up this specific case. Laws are mistreated all the time. Some laws are obviously necessary. Some are not. Anti-discrimination laws are not. They are even less necessary now than they were 45-50 years ago. I typically don't like using the calendar as justification for an argument, but in 2019 if a company truly discriminates it will be ripped to shreds with the massive number of information outlets we have today.

"They just need to be applied that way." This line sums up everything that I have been saying. The intent of the law is benevolent. It's application has proven to be shady on numerous occasions. As i've said, the market does a good job of policing true discrimination. There is not a need add unwarranted government infringement.

Any law can go bad if applied unjustly. That doesn’t mean the answer is no laws.

It’s 2019 and we still have racial discrimination. Sucks right? Unfortunately, the civil rights act is still necessary.

This is why we need as few laws as possible. I believe society is good as a whole. When something is police by laws, you put the power in the hands of a few. These few aren't guaranteed to be just, fair people. When you let society police an issue like this, now the enforcement is much more powerful and a multitude are deciding what is just and fair. This gives the people much more of a voice and doesn't infringe on freedoms.

The fact that we still have discrimination discrimination works against your argument for anti-discrimination laws. We have had the Civil Rights Act since '64. Racial prejudices will always exist. Put the power in the hands of the people. Obviously, leaving enforcement up to the government is not more effective.

I give to the ASPCA. We have discrimination but I dont think you can force people to stop being racist.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 7:35:00 PM (view original):
I still am wary of the private sector.

The blessing and curse of the private sector is that the goal is only to make money. But not every institution should serve to make money, namely humanitarian ones, like prisons and universities.

Tldr - if a humanitarian group has 'for profit' in front of it, it usually isn't great.

Also I don't mind big government as much as everyone else.

You don't for public universities make money? Like CCCP, not for profit is nothing more than a tax designation. I agree with you that I would rather give to the Salvation Army or Habitat for Humanity over Goodwill any day. I trust "not for profit" charity organizations more as well. These are the choices that a free market provide us.

As far as big government, remember your history when you say this. Almost every government in history has become tyrannical at some point. The more power you give to government, the easier you make it for them.

I believe in the free market for businesses. I don't believe in Communism, obviously. I don't think the point of universities and prisons should be to make money off of 'consumers'. Those should be run humanely by the government.

I don't think a single president can completely overthrow our democracy in America, so the people will get a say in who runs our government, and I can take that risk. I don't support a bigger or smaller government, I support a better government.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Also, what makes you wary of the private sector?

When answering, please remember that there is a difference between capitalism and corporatism.

I just explained that. I support the private sector in most cases (although the government should take action to prevent certain mergers/acquisitions and monopolies, but I am not an expert on all of that) but some institutions should not be run with the intent to make as much money as possible.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 8:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 7:11:00 PM (view original):
The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

I don't think we're really getting into the specifics with that case, I think we're talking more in generalities. That case actually went to SCOTUS and the baker prevailed in a narrow ruling (narrow in the scope of the opinion, not the votes, it was 7-2). It certainly didn't reverse the civil rights act. It just said that The Colorado commission acted with hostility towards the baker.

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

I say that immediately after saying that strikeout didn't show how the laws are used to discriminate. My bad. It does look that this was a case where the state did discriminate.

I still argue that laws themselves are good, just, and necessary. They just need to be applied that way.

Yes, that it why I brought up this specific case. Laws are mistreated all the time. Some laws are obviously necessary. Some are not. Anti-discrimination laws are not. They are even less necessary now than they were 45-50 years ago. I typically don't like using the calendar as justification for an argument, but in 2019 if a company truly discriminates it will be ripped to shreds with the massive number of information outlets we have today.

"They just need to be applied that way." This line sums up everything that I have been saying. The intent of the law is benevolent. It's application has proven to be shady on numerous occasions. As i've said, the market does a good job of policing true discrimination. There is not a need add unwarranted government infringement.

Any law can go bad if applied unjustly. That doesn’t mean the answer is no laws.

It’s 2019 and we still have racial discrimination. Sucks right? Unfortunately, the civil rights act is still necessary.

This is why we need as few laws as possible. I believe society is good as a whole. When something is police by laws, you put the power in the hands of a few. These few aren't guaranteed to be just, fair people. When you let society police an issue like this, now the enforcement is much more powerful and a multitude are deciding what is just and fair. This gives the people much more of a voice and doesn't infringe on freedoms.

The fact that we still have discrimination discrimination works against your argument for anti-discrimination laws. We have had the Civil Rights Act since '64. Racial prejudices will always exist. Put the power in the hands of the people. Obviously, leaving enforcement up to the government is not more effective.

We shouldn't ban murder because murder will still happen regardless.

The power has been in the hands of people, and it failed. Remember when we were allowed to own other humans?

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:35:00 PM (view original):
The answer is pretty obvious according to our constitution. People are not protected from discrimination by other private citizens in our constitution. People's religious beliefs and freedom of expression are protected from our government.

and you said the government should not be involved in our private lives, so in other words you don't think our basic freedoms should be protected, or am I misunderstanding something?

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 7:35:00 PM (view original):
I still am wary of the private sector.

The blessing and curse of the private sector is that the goal is only to make money. But not every institution should serve to make money, namely humanitarian ones, like prisons and universities.

Tldr - if a humanitarian group has 'for profit' in front of it, it usually isn't great.

Also I don't mind big government as much as everyone else.

You don't for public universities make money? Like CCCP, not for profit is nothing more than a tax designation. I agree with you that I would rather give to the Salvation Army or Habitat for Humanity over Goodwill any day. I trust "not for profit" charity organizations more as well. These are the choices that a free market provide us.

As far as big government, remember your history when you say this. Almost every government in history has become tyrannical at some point. The more power you give to government, the easier you make it for them.

I believe in the free market for businesses. I don't believe in Communism, obviously. I don't think the point of universities and prisons should be to make money off of 'consumers'. Those should be run humanely by the government.

I don't think a single president can completely overthrow our democracy in America, so the people will get a say in who runs our government, and I can take that risk. I don't support a bigger or smaller government, I support a better government.

To your first point, clarify for me, when you say that "(universities) should be run humanely by the government", are you saying that we shouldn't have private colleges?

If you don't think that America can become tyrannical, read about Germany prior to Hitler (I will actually attach an article on this for you) and Mussolini. There are quite a few more. It would be beneficial for you to learn about them. Our founders wanted a small government with the power in the hands of the citizenry for a reason. The larger that we grow government and the more influence that we give it on our lives, the closer we come to repeating history. "A better government" is very subjective and doesn't create a guarantee against tyranny. This is why I warn you against comedians trying to be political commentators like Jon Stewart. They don't know what the hell they are talking about and people soak up what they say as fact. It's very dangerous.

It's sad that our public (most private as well) institutions fail to teach our youth true history and teach revisionist history. It is going to lead us down a very bad road. England is a little different as they are a Monarchy (constitutional monarchy now), but read about King Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth's reign. This is what happens when you give government too much power.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2013/02/05/how-dictators-come-to-power-in-a-democracy/#72653a617ff7

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 8:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 8:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 7:11:00 PM (view original):
The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

I don't think we're really getting into the specifics with that case, I think we're talking more in generalities. That case actually went to SCOTUS and the baker prevailed in a narrow ruling (narrow in the scope of the opinion, not the votes, it was 7-2). It certainly didn't reverse the civil rights act. It just said that The Colorado commission acted with hostility towards the baker.

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

I say that immediately after saying that strikeout didn't show how the laws are used to discriminate. My bad. It does look that this was a case where the state did discriminate.

I still argue that laws themselves are good, just, and necessary. They just need to be applied that way.

Yes, that it why I brought up this specific case. Laws are mistreated all the time. Some laws are obviously necessary. Some are not. Anti-discrimination laws are not. They are even less necessary now than they were 45-50 years ago. I typically don't like using the calendar as justification for an argument, but in 2019 if a company truly discriminates it will be ripped to shreds with the massive number of information outlets we have today.

"They just need to be applied that way." This line sums up everything that I have been saying. The intent of the law is benevolent. It's application has proven to be shady on numerous occasions. As i've said, the market does a good job of policing true discrimination. There is not a need add unwarranted government infringement.

Any law can go bad if applied unjustly. That doesn’t mean the answer is no laws.

It’s 2019 and we still have racial discrimination. Sucks right? Unfortunately, the civil rights act is still necessary.

This is why we need as few laws as possible. I believe society is good as a whole. When something is police by laws, you put the power in the hands of a few. These few aren't guaranteed to be just, fair people. When you let society police an issue like this, now the enforcement is much more powerful and a multitude are deciding what is just and fair. This gives the people much more of a voice and doesn't infringe on freedoms.

The fact that we still have discrimination discrimination works against your argument for anti-discrimination laws. We have had the Civil Rights Act since '64. Racial prejudices will always exist. Put the power in the hands of the people. Obviously, leaving enforcement up to the government is not more effective.

We shouldn't ban murder because murder will still happen regardless.

The power has been in the hands of people, and it failed. Remember when we were allowed to own other humans?

I think we all can agree that some laws need to be in place. It's a societal consensus that murder is wrong and that we should have laws to protect people from murder. This is why I was hoping people on here were smart enough to realize this on their own without me having to type it, but I guess I was wrong.

Mentioning slavery here works against your argument that government intrusion was ethical. Jim Crow is another good example. Slaves were considered chattel by the US government. Laws were on the books to protect slave owners' "property". We then saw state sponsored racism by the hand of the government through the Jim Crow laws. Our government screws things up, Change in America happens because our great citizens speak up when there is injustice. Our government likes to swoop in and take all of the credit, but real, productive change happens through the hands of the people.

Remember, both scenarios that you mention fit within my definition of the role of government. Government has a responsibility to protect people from physical harm by others. Both murder and slavery causes harm to others.

Discrimination does not cause physical harm to others in most cases. In the cases that it does, we already have laws on the book for those people's protection. We don't need redundant laws. We have too many of those as is. For example, hate crime legislation. All violent crimes are hate crimes. If you beat or torture someone whether or not we have "hate crime" legislation, you go to jail. If you murder someone regardless of whether we have "hate crime" legislation, you go to jail.

Posted by wylie715 on 1/29/2019 9:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:35:00 PM (view original):
The answer is pretty obvious according to our constitution. People are not protected from discrimination by other private citizens in our constitution. People's religious beliefs and freedom of expression are protected from our government.

and you said the government should not be involved in our private lives, so in other words you don't think our basic freedoms should be protected, or am I misunderstanding something?

You're misunderstanding something somewhere. Our basic freedoms should be protected and they are, but those rights don't extend into forcing others to do something they are against. I used the word discrimination, because that is the word that most on the left use but the conversation is much broader than discrimination. Admittedly, i'm a little tired as it's 10 PM on the East Coast and struggling to articulate my thoughts, so if you need more clarity I will be more than happy to provide it.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 7:35:00 PM (view original):
I still am wary of the private sector.

The blessing and curse of the private sector is that the goal is only to make money. But not every institution should serve to make money, namely humanitarian ones, like prisons and universities.

Tldr - if a humanitarian group has 'for profit' in front of it, it usually isn't great.

Also I don't mind big government as much as everyone else.

You don't for public universities make money? Like CCCP, not for profit is nothing more than a tax designation. I agree with you that I would rather give to the Salvation Army or Habitat for Humanity over Goodwill any day. I trust "not for profit" charity organizations more as well. These are the choices that a free market provide us.

As far as big government, remember your history when you say this. Almost every government in history has become tyrannical at some point. The more power you give to government, the easier you make it for them.

I believe in the free market for businesses. I don't believe in Communism, obviously. I don't think the point of universities and prisons should be to make money off of 'consumers'. Those should be run humanely by the government.

I don't think a single president can completely overthrow our democracy in America, so the people will get a say in who runs our government, and I can take that risk. I don't support a bigger or smaller government, I support a better government.

To your first point, clarify for me, when you say that "(universities) should be run humanely by the government", are you saying that we shouldn't have private colleges?

If you don't think that America can become tyrannical, read about Germany prior to Hitler (I will actually attach an article on this for you) and Mussolini. There are quite a few more. It would be beneficial for you to learn about them. Our founders wanted a small government with the power in the hands of the citizenry for a reason. The larger that we grow government and the more influence that we give it on our lives, the closer we come to repeating history. "A better government" is very subjective and doesn't create a guarantee against tyranny. This is why I warn you against comedians trying to be political commentators like Jon Stewart. They don't know what the hell they are talking about and people soak up what they say as fact. It's very dangerous.

It's sad that our public (most private as well) institutions fail to teach our youth true history and teach revisionist history. It is going to lead us down a very bad road. England is a little different as they are a Monarchy (constitutional monarchy now), but read about King Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth's reign. This is what happens when you give government too much power.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2013/02/05/how-dictators-come-to-power-in-a-democracy/#72653a617ff7

Depends on the intent and what type of college it is. Many private colleges are non-profit and are really good, and many are not. We have (had) rules against for-profit colleges, that I support.

There is no guarantee against tyranny, you are absolutely correct about that, although I think that is true regardless of the 'size of government'. However I will take the tradeoff of a higher risk of tyranny if it means better social programs. You may, rightly, disagree.