No, the point of government is to protect your rights from violation by others.
Those unalienable rights you are born with as outlined in the bill of rights.
It's not to overcome the failings of humanity (an impossible task if ever there was one).
Those unalienable rights you are born with as outlined in the bill of rights.
It's not to overcome the failings of humanity (an impossible task if ever there was one).
It's morally wrong to use threats of government violence to dictate how an individual uses their private property.
Violence is only an acceptable response in cases when a person initiates a violation of another's person or property.
Because I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property.
Person A says, "I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property"
Person B says, "I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property or my right to be treated equally".
How do I know who is correct?
It's not a viable principle to base a justice system on. It will inevitably lead to politics being turned into a venue through which groups fight to expand their power at the expense of others. This is hugely wasteful.
An important question is, why would anyone desire to see others oppressed and abused, that they would defend the power to do it?
You do not have a right to a product or service (like healthcare), or a job, that someone else provides. You're only entitled to your life, liberty and property. As soon as you assume a right to things others produce, you support the violation of their life, liberty and/or property.
>An important question is, why would anyone desire to see others oppressed and abused, that they would defend the power to do it?
Private discrimination is not oppression. Using government violence to prevent someone from discriminating is oppression.
Private discrimination is something we all engage in, every day. What you're arguing for is prohibiting certain types of discrimination, in certain areas of private life. For instance, prohibiting racial discrimination but not ideological discrimination, and in one's business interactions, and not sexual interactions.
The whole concept of prohibiting private discrimination is wrong, as it presumes we do not have a total right to determine who we associate and do business with.
I haven't seen evidence that private discrimination leads to revolution.
History is filled with examples of laws being passed to mandate segregation, and to discriminate against minorities, because the authorities were concerned about the fact that in the absence of such intervention, the majority demographic was mixing with a minority group through marriage and commerce.
Another being(assuming we all agree on what a failing is) the rights you need to violate to attempt(and fail, because it will fail) to address that failing.
Better to leave people to themselves than inflict certain misery in a misguided attempt to remould mankind in your own image.
Currently race and sex are nono's but religion and politics is ok.
Why should I face discrimination for my appearance when trying to get laid?
Surely the government should ban women and men from turning me down for sex because I'm not attractive.