The Jim Crow Fallacy

[Stargazer]

But your earlier reason for decrying public accommodation laws as Satanic was that they forced people to behave righteously. What force is present in public accommodation laws that was also not present in, say, Prop 8? 

 

Prop 8 removed the "free and untrammeled choice" that existed prior to its implementation, did it not?

 

You seem confused about Prop 8.  All Prop 8 did was to countermand a decision by the CA State Supreme Court, and replaced it by a democratically-decided vote to amend the state constitution to only recognize male/female marriages.  Prop 8 was preceded by Prop 22:

 

"Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. In May 2008, it was struck down by the California Supreme Court as contrary to the state constitution."

 

"Proposition 8 countermanded the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision as in Proposition 22 to the California Constitution, providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby superseding the 2008 ruling. As an amendment, it was ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton, in 2009, on the grounds that it "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause";"

 

In short, California voters twice voted to keep marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman, and both times the voters were overruled by courts.

[Stargazer]

Please show me where you think I decried public accommodation laws as Satanic.

 

He was talking to me on that one.

[Stargazer]

And Somalia is the perfect demonstration of absolute free market capitalism unfettered by government. Fortunately I am not advocating for Stalinism or a capitalist system with a government so weak you can drown it in a bathtub.

 

Oh, no, it's not.  It is an example of chaos with nobody and nothing in charge.  Free market economies only work where there is a rule of law which is observed by all players, and where there is a minimal government, or a quasi-government which is trusted by all parties to fairly decided disputes and deal with law-breakers.

 

An actual example of a free market economy with minimal government was what existed in Israel after Joshua and the guys took it over from the Canaanites.  While far from perfect, it is the best historical example of a free market economy -- prior to the early United States anyway.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Stargazer

[Calm]

I have read Arrington's book "American Moses".  Do you happen to have a reference to where he makes his definition of communal arrangements.  Thanks!  In the meantime I will try to find it.

 

Might be in Great Basin Kingdom.

[The Nehor]

Are you denying the lessons that were learned by the settlers in Jamestown and Plymouth Rock during the 17th century?

 

That self-interest over the needs of others prevents people from surviving under a communal society? Nope, I do not deny it at all. That is why these experiments and I would add Brigham Young and Joseph Smith's attempts to introduce consecration failed. There have been short-term successes but, as seems to always happen, Babylon is more attractive to virtually everyone then Zion. That we know of only Enoch and the Nephites had successes with this system and the Nephites abandoned it and destroyed themselves. 

 

Capitalism is the solution if you believe self-interest is the only way by which we can survive and that humans cannot change. I would suggest that God instead wants better humans.

 

Look at the experiments you mentioned. Without the direct profit from their labor the people would not work. In one of the instances people were whipped for not working hard enough and it still did not work. Seems like they did not see the benefit of their neighbor as their own or as Christ's as he has told us that He receives what we give to the lowliest. Are these people fit candidates for exaltation? No. I think the United Order is there to provide us the furnace to burn away treating ourselves as more important and more deserving of the fruits of our labors then others.

 

In any case this is way off from the topic. I am not suggesting the introduction of complete socialism in America. I think it would be disastrous if tried. Of course I do not consider capitalism with some social safety nets complete socialism. I also do not consider anti-discrimination laws to be complete socialism either.

[The Nehor]

Oh, no, it's not.  It is an example of chaos with nobody and nothing in charge.  Free market economies only work where there is a rule of law which is observed by all players, and where there is a minimal government, or a quasi-government which is trusted by all parties to fairly decided disputes and deal with law-breakers.

 

So......never? I have never heard of such a government. A weak government that is trusted by everyone to fairly decide things?

 

 

An actual example of a free market economy with minimal government was what existed in Israel after Joshua and the guys took it over from the Canaanites.  While far from perfect, it is the best historical example of a free market economy -- prior to the early United States anyway.

 

The time of the Judges (if the Book of Judges was to be believed) involved large portions of Israel being overrun by foreign powers. The Judges were warriors freeing Israel. They may have passed judgement on disputes but free market? Have you read the Law of Moses? If they were living in a Free Market economy they were defying God's law.

 

As to the early United States they learned early one of the biggest dangers of the free market: monopolies. Once you control the only supply the laws of supply and demand go out the window as prices can be set by the company and not fluctuate according to market demands. Much of the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith never materialized to correct market problems. The free market is not a magical force that corrects all ills. Adam Smith thought it would. He was wrong.

 

That being said I have no burning hatred of capitalism. It has treated me quite well. I just do not venerate it. Capitalism mixed with safety nets and reasonable government controls is probably the best system we will have until we build a better man and capitalism can be tossed aside as a relic as we enter into the kingdom of God.

[Calm]

 

 

An actual example of a free market economy with minimal government was what existed in Israel after Joshua and the guys took it over from the Canaanites.  While far from perfect, it is the best historical example of a free market economy

How so?

[Stargazer]

So......never? I have never heard of such a government. A weak government that is trusted by everyone to fairly decide things?

The time of the Judges (if the Book of Judges was to be believed) involved large portions of Israel being overrun by foreign powers. The Judges were warriors freeing Israel. They may have passed judgement on disputes but free market? Have you read the Law of Moses? If they were living in a Free Market economy they were defying God's law.

Oh, yes, I've read the Law of Moses, and I never found any part of it that disapproves of free market economics. There were certainly elements of Mosaic law that covered economic matters, but only for regulatory purposes. Nobody was forbidden to buy or sell products that were in demand, and at prices mutually agreeable. And that, TSS, is the essence of free market economics. Unless you have a radically different idea of what the free market is.

The Book of the Judges is to be believed, I suppose, but one thing I've noticed about history is this: when there wasn't any conflict and things were just proceeding as usual, there wasn't much reason to write about it. "This year nothing much happened except food and clothing production, buying, selling, marrying, giving in marriage, and occasionally some idiot broke the law and got punished." Rinse and repeat? No, they wrote about dramatic events and let the boring bits go as assumed background noise.

The time between the initial conquest of Canaan and the rise of Saul was around 300 years. Do you think that they were constantly at war during this entire period? They weren't, although there were periods of conflict between the surrounding nations and Israel.

As to the early United States they learned early one of the biggest dangers of the free market: monopolies. Once you control the only supply the laws of supply and demand go out the window as prices can be set by the company and not fluctuate according to market demands. Much of the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith never materialized to correct market problems. The free market is not a magical force that corrects all ills. Adam Smith thought it would. He was wrong.

I don't know why you think Adam Smith was wrong. Monopolies can only prosper indefinitely when companies can get government to make them the only legal provider of particular services or commodities. The only reason the US Postal Service could continue to exist with a monopoly over delivery of first class mail is because the Federal government made it a crime for anyone else to do it. Other companies were permitted to compete in the delivery of parcels and so as a result there are many such companies and no possible monopoly. What other so-called monopolies are you thinking of? The old Ma Bell long distance telephone system? Again, this was a government-enforced monopoly, because AT&T convinced the government that only a monopoly could provide such a service efficiently. Once the monopoly was broken up (again, by the government which had created it), suddenly a hundred new companies sprang up and began to offer long-distance telephony at a fraction of the former cost (AT&T could charge whatever it wanted, as a monopoly, even though it did have to kowtow to a regulatory body when it came to what it was allowed to charge). I am old enough to remember when making a long-distance call was not a trivial matter, financially. Now, because the old government-created monopoly was done away with, the free market makes it possible for me to call Germany and speak to my sister-in-law for an hour and pay very little for the privilege (on the other hand, when she calls us, she pays a lot more because Germany still has a government-run state telephone monopoly).

You make these wild claims about how the "invisible hand" never materialized, but wherever it had free reign, free of government-created monopolies, it operated exactly as expected. Some people like to make such companies as were owned by the so-called "robber barons" of the late 19th Century United States as monopolies that had to be broken up, but even at its height, such companies as Standard Oil weren't the only providers of fuel and oil, and by the time the government acted to do something about their market penetration there were already many successfully competing companies nipping at their heels.

I'm not saying that classic monopolies are impossible, that's clearly false. But when they occur they are not as powerful as you might think. One classic characteristic of a monopoly is price inflation. As the only supplier, a monopoly can theoretically charge anything it wants for its products, and anyone who wants the products is forced to go along. This is true to a point, but if a monopoly is a true monopoly, i.e. one not enforced by government action, then as price goes up competitors are attracted or come into being, simply because there is now more money involved in the product or service, and investors not involved in the monopoly want to profit as well, so they invest in order to compete. The funny thing about Standard Oil was this, that even though they enjoyed a practical monopoly for a period of time, their prices were not unreasonably high, and in fact were far cheaper than what we have to pay. The thing about economics is this: if a provider charges too much, then customers won't buy as much. There is always a "sweet spot" in pricing, where a "market clearing" effect is reached because of a balance between how much is asked versus how much can be afforded. If one raises one's price too high, then suddenly one is making much less than if one charges less. This is because of human behavior.

That being said I have no burning hatred of capitalism. It has treated me quite well. I just do not venerate it. Capitalism mixed with safety nets and reasonable government controls is probably the best system we will have until we build a better man and capitalism can be tossed aside as a relic as we enter into the kingdom of God.

I'm going to go out on a limb and make the observation that you probably don't understand economics and capitalism as well as you think you do. There are a lot of misconceptions and outright myths about it going on out there, and the fact that you said what you said about monopolies convinces me that you have fallen prey to a few of them. These are things that the Left take on faith and regurgitate like Pavlov's dogs upon stimulation, but things as they actually are are frequently far different from the commonplace fairy tales that go around out there in the wild.

[Stargazer]

How so?

They didn't have a central government that taxed them six ways from Friday. A person could buy and sell at will, and as long as a merchant or a farmer handled themselves honestly and knew what they were doing, they prospered freely. The only laws were God's laws and people could do what they wished as long as they kept that law.

Their eventual downfall and their demand for a King came because their adherance to God's laws went into decline. Even those who were entrusted with the Law of Moses (the Levites) went corrupt, and caused a lot of trouble. The rise of the Prophet Samuel was due to just that kind of trouble. If they had kept the laws as they were supposed to, they would have remained strong. But just like the Nephites, they let prosperity turn them to materialism.

[thatjimguy]

So in the marketplace, you want interaction with other citizens to depend on your personal preference.  So when you walk into a store and someone says I can see your garments, get out, you will leave, saying to yourself, that's fair.  Your access to the marketplace, including the job market, can depend upon the individual preferences of someone who, say, thinks all Utahns are crazy and can't be trusted with a job. 

 

Oh, and as long as it's not a law that Mormons are discriminated against, it's okay if individuals do it.

 

Please, think before you speak!

 

People have the right to be jerks.

[Alan]

Do I have the right to discriminate against a gay baker?

Can I refuse to buy from him because he is gay?

[Kenngo1969]

Do I have the right to discriminate against a gay baker?

Can I refuse to buy from him because he is gay?

Yeah, just don't do it in Oregon or Canada or somewhere else where a Human Rights Commission or similar body is likely to haul you into court to answer for your crimes before an administrative law judge.

[CV75]

He was talking to me on that one.

Good! LOL

[CV75]

Here's one from 2007--more than 40 years after the Civil Rights Act: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96577

And another from 2012:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-church-rejects-black-wedding/story?id=16878536

Neither church lost its tax-exempt status or was otherwise legally punished by civil authorities, despite clear anti-discrimination laws regarding public accomodations and government entities being prohibited from discriminating based on race.

The same principles will apply to laws protecting churches regarding LGBT equality laws.

Btw... 5 pages in, and STILL no answers to my questions from page 1 (including your question-avoiding response, Kenngo).

Great and I agree that protecting churches is the right aim--but these articles are about churches' refusal to marry people, not a business owner's refusal to serve a wedding. And I think that is the point of discussion between gray and me.

 

I'll take a look at your page 1 posts/questions and will comment if I think it would be productive -- I jumped into this thread late.

 

ETA:

With regards to your questions on public accommodation, just as anti-discrimination laws do not “entirely” grant the hiring of protected classes, legal pre- and post-employment arrangements can also accommodate employees’ religious beliefs for good and legally defensible reasons.

 

You indicated that your questions about cake are moot.

Edited July 9, 2015 by CV75

[Gray]

You seem confused about Prop 8.  All Prop 8 did was to countermand a decision by the CA State Supreme Court, and replaced it by a democratically-decided vote to amend the state constitution to only recognize male/female marriages.  Prop 8 was preceded by Prop 22:

 

"Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. In May 2008, it was struck down by the California Supreme Court as contrary to the state constitution."

 

"Proposition 8 countermanded the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision as in Proposition 22 to the California Constitution, providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby superseding the 2008 ruling. As an amendment, it was ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton, in 2009, on the grounds that it "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause";"

 

In short, California voters twice voted to keep marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman, and both times the voters were overruled by courts.

 

Good thing too, as they were attempting to use satanic force to compel obedience. 

 

In any case, a majority of Americans now support gay marriage. Not that majorities have the right in this country to take away rights of minorities, but even if they did, there is no longer enough public support to do it by vote. 

Edited July 9, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

And they worked quite well huh?

 

I don't know. I know when the Latter-day Saints tried it (both times) it didn't seem to work out 

[Gray]

Please show me where you think I decried public accommodation laws as Satanic.

 

My apologies, I was confusing your posts with Stargazers. I must be getting senile. 

[The Nehor]

I'm going to go out on a limb and make the observation that you probably don't understand economics and capitalism as well as you think you do. There are a lot of misconceptions and outright myths about it going on out there, and the fact that you said what you said about monopolies convinces me that you have fallen prey to a few of them. These are things that the Left take on faith and regurgitate like Pavlov's dogs upon stimulation, but things as they actually are are frequently far different from the commonplace fairy tales that go around out there in the wild.

How sweet and condescending.

I find it amusing coming from someone as hopelessly naive about economics and history as some of the silliness in your last posts indicate. I would love to see you write up a paper about the time of the Judges being the first historical example of free market capitalism and show it to a serious economist and/or historian. They could probably use a good laugh.

As to monopolies you have picked one form (government mandated monopolies) and made that the only kind out there. A basic economics course would show you there are others. In fact I bet reading a Wikipedia entry would show you more (I checked, I was right).

Here are a few other ways monopolies form:

Technological Advantage (only one company has the knowledge to create the product and start up costs are prohibitive)

Economies of scale (particularly powerful if there is only room for one company in the market to match demand)

Monopoly of resource (one company controls all or almost all of the supply, the diamond jewelry industry fits this model)

Collusion (a number of large companies dominating a market agree to fix prices and work together to increase prices and avoid competition)

There are many more. So come back after you read "Baby's First Guide to Economics" and we can talk. Okay, I did slip into condescending. Whoops.

[The Nehor]

They didn't have a central government that taxed them six ways from Friday. A person could buy and sell at will, and as long as a merchant or a farmer handled themselves honestly and knew what they were doing, they prospered freely. The only laws were God's laws and people could do what they wished as long as they kept that law.Their eventual downfall and their demand for a King came because their adherance to God's laws went into decline. Even those who were entrusted with the Law of Moses (the Levites) went corrupt, and caused a lot of trouble. The rise of the Prophet Samuel was due to just that kind of trouble. If they had kept the laws as they were supposed to, they would have remained strong. But just like the Nephites, they let prosperity turn them to materialism.

And the Germans would have won the First World War if the Jews had not undermined the nation and the government hadn't stabbed military in the back.

Making stuff up is fun.

[Gray]

Absolutely. We have to have a real issue of a real religion with a real prohibition against interracial marriage resulting in real allegations of non-compliance with anti-discrimination laws to compare with real religions with real prohibitions against gay marriage resulting in allegations of "identity" (your term) discrimination...

 

 

A significant number of people still oppose interracial marriage - I can't guess which ones do so for religious reasons. We were among that group at one point in our history.

 

But it seems you made it up as a distraction from the real issue!

 

Refusal to serve, not because of the personal identity of the individual spouses, but because of the tacit approval of and involvement with the morally bankrupt and illicit marriage (in the eyes of the religious business owner) by the business owner, is rightly protected by anti-discrimination laws.

 

In this case it is exactly that personal identity that cause some fundamentalists to discriminate based on religious reasons. It is the identity of the couple that makes people view the union as "illicit" 

[Gray]

Here's one from 2007--more than 40 years after the Civil Rights Act: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96577

And another from 2012:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-church-rejects-black-wedding/story?id=16878536

Neither church lost its tax-exempt status or was otherwise legally punished by civil authorities, despite clear anti-discrimination laws regarding public accomodations and government entities being prohibited from discriminating based on race.

The same principles will apply to laws protecting churches regarding LGBT equality laws.

Btw... 5 pages in, and STILL no answers to my questions from page 1 (including your question-avoiding response, Kenngo).

 

Thanks Daniel!

[Gray]

Do I have the right to discriminate against a gay baker?

Can I refuse to buy from him because he is gay?

 

Yes. But people running businesses must serve the public without prejudice (at least based on whatever protected categories exist at the federal and state level). There is nothing that says the public has to serve businesses, or buy anything from them they don't want. 

Edited July 9, 2015 by Gray

[CV75]

A significant number of people still oppose interracial marriage - I can't guess which ones do so for religious reasons. We were among that group at one point in our history.

So what? We’re talking (at least I am) about current circumstances and events... and not the refusal of churches to perform weddings (and the LDS does not perform ceratin kinds of marriages/weddings), but the refusal of business owners or employees to tacitly approve and participate in weddings that are religiously objectionable.

 

In this case it is exactly that personal identity that cause some fundamentalists to discriminate based on religious reasons. It is the identity of the couple that makes people view the union as "illicit" 

I can't speak for "some fundamentalists" or portray them as representative of an argument for the general rule.

 

I don’t see an “identity discrimination” issue at all in the discussion of business owners or employees refusing to tacitly approve and participate in weddings that are religiously objectionable to them.

 

Thanks Daniel!

Why? These articles have nothing to do with supporting your argument!

Edited July 9, 2015 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

Wishful thinking at best.

 

Socialism is always forced. That is how it works. The government takes.

 

UO is people give it of their one free will. That is a colossal difference.

 

In Scandinavia it isn't forced.

[Gray]

So what? We’re talking (at least I am) about current circumstances and events... and not the refusal of churches to perform weddings (and the LDS does not perform ceratin kinds of marriages/weddings), but the refusal of business owners or employees to tacitly approve and participate in weddings that are religiously objectionable.

 

Right, and the issue is very similar to the issue of mixed-race marriage. 

 

I can't speak for "some fundamentalists" or portray them as representative of an argument for the general rule.

 

I don’t see an “identity discrimination” issue at all in the discussion of business owners or employees refusing to tacitly approve and participate in weddings that are religiously objectionable to them.

 

The religious objection is to the identity of the couple. Specifically the genders of the couple.  There's no getting around that. 

 

Why? These articles have nothing to do with supporting your argument!

 

Your question about who opposes mixed-race marriage for religious purposes didn't have anything to do with my argument either, but it answered the question anyway.