I understand your point. I do. I just don’t agree it is a good basis for a cohesive society.
Chris Albery-Jones
11

What you are describing is a contract between individuals. These individuals choose to agree to the contract to work on that farm up the road. They could have just as easily kept walking. Or, they could have read the agreement and decided they don’t like it, but either way, they had a choice.

I don’t know what the employment contracts looked like for the people who were fired for being gay. If the employer violated the contract, then they should be punished. But it is important to note, that it is still just a contract between a person and an employer and both parties freely entered into those contracts. If the contract stated that gay people cannot work for the employer and you may be fired if we determine you are gay, then guess what, the employee violated his contract with the employer. If the contract said you can be terminated for any reason at any time, then, guess what…

Laws, are not contracts. The constitution is not a contract. In fact the vast majority of laws and regulations that our governments produce were never agreed upon by almost everybody alive. Just because 51% of people vote for a politician and then that politician passes a law, doesnt mean everybody is in agreement with it. It is NOT a contract those people entered into freely. And because government has a monopoly on the use of force, all of those laws ultimately must be backed up with the threat of violence and coercion. Is it okay to force 49% of the people to abide by rules they fundamentally disagree with?

I’m fine with the government using violence to enforce a contract that two people freely agreed to abide by. I am not okay with government coming in and telling people how they should write their employment contracts and with whom they MUST associate.

I believe in the non aggression principal. I believe there are only three reasonable justifications for the use of violence.

  • In self defense against a physical (not mental or spiritual) attack.
  • In defense of personal property, assuming no other recourse is available.
  • In upholding contracts that have been agreed to freely by all parties, assuming no other recourse is available.

I believe these things for good reason. First, it is a given that all humans alive, wish to remain alive and free from harm, otherwise, they would have killed themselves by now, therefore, self protection is a natural human right.

In the pursuit of living, one must acquire things like food and shelter, therefore, if one works to obtain these things, then to take them away is to deprive the person of the things they have strived to acquire. Theft is a form of slavery. Now, in todays society, we have things that are not necessities, but you know what, life is not about base needs and we should be able to obtain the things that help us expand our reality and enjoy life, like smartphones and music. If everyone has a right to take everyone else’s stuff, then nobody is free and everyone becomes a slave to whoever wants your stuff, therefore private property is a natural right.

In the course of obtaining things, we may need to seek alliances. Contracts between people are agreements to compensate each other for performance or delivery of goods and services. If you deny me my cabbage after I pay you, I should have some recourse and if we cannot come to reasonable terms like civilized people, I will resort to force. Arguably, using violence to settle a contract dispute is the least ideal of the three situations, so its nice to have other ways to communicate our grievances and make sure the wrong party gets punished, but I still think that depending on circumstances, violence may be justified.

To an extent, this is already written into law. Murder and assault are illegal. Theft is illegal. Courts and third party arbitrators make sure contracts are enforced. Now, why do we need more laws than this to settle our issues? Why do people need extra protection? If employers weren’t so restricted by regulations, they would write contracts that suit their needs and beliefs, but they cannot and that to me is wrong, because you are forcing people to agree to things they might otherwise not agree to. They have no choice. They were born into it. Even if they were the one guy who voted against the law, you are still forcing that person to abide by a contract he does not wish to abide by. And what harm is he doing. He isnt hurting people. He isnt steeling from people. Why punish him for simply not wanting to work with gay people?

And keep in mind, the farmer does not owe you anything more than what your contract states. He could just as easily not hire you. In fact, if you put a regulation out there that says you cant deny someone a job because they are gay, people who dont want to work with gay people will simply find a more suitable reason. Ah! we already have enough farmers on hand. Or, Oh my, you simply dont have enough experience with this specific type of grain hopper. They could fire you for other more suitable reasons as well.

Look, everyone knows the war on drugs is a failure. Bear with me, there is a point. The war on drugs is a failure because hey! people want drugs. Pot is illegal in a lot of places, but that might be news to pot dealers and potheads. The reason why the drug war is a disaster is because laws dont actually stop people from doing things. Drugs go underground. Wouldn’t you rather know which employers dont want to work with gay people by seeing how they write their employment contracts or finding out why they fire people? Wouldn’t you rather be free to hire and fire who you want? People go around whatever system you put in place. To the extent that not everybody has the capability or time to defend themselves when they are assaulted or robbed, or slighted on a contract, I think it is okay to have police who can do that for you, but only for the three reasons above. Police should not be able to use force to make two people get along in life. Again, if I accidentally hired a Nazi bouncer at my club, I want to be able to fire him and send a clear message as to why.

As far as defending people is concerned. I grew up differently I guess. I was and still am a small person (not short, just not muscular) I am also not a fighter, at all. I am probably not going to step into a fist fight should one break out, but it isn’t out of the question and I have done so. When people call others names, I don’t really care. I was called all kinds of names. I got over it. They are just words. Words cannot hurt you, they cannot stop you from doing what you want, unless you believe they are true. Wouldn’t it be nice if gay people just stood up for themselves in the off chance someone calls them a name? And hey! Why not just call those people names back? Or better yet, keep walking…

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.