Talk:Future's Course III (Map Game)/@comment-32023146-20190411034130/@comment-32023146-20190411110307

My point 1 doesn't change.

Regarding



That's somewhat my point - they will stop working and that will harm the economy. The free market will provide for those being discriminated against (there will always be the liberals), but causing a good half of the population in the US, more like 80% of Kurdistan, to stop working as they refuse to succumb to government force will definitely harm the economy.

Another important thing to bear this in mind:

What if the government forced you to not discriminate against neo-Nazis. A neo-Nazi wants a Swastika on their cake? You cannot discriminate.

You might say, "but they are despicable people." I would agree, btw. But that is not the point. The point is if you create obviously biased laws based on your a priori judgements, you instantly evaporate any notion of universality in your laws.

In other words, you are simply enforcing your viewpoints on others using the government and legal system as a brute-force enforcement mechanism.

On the other hand, if you allowed the free market to take its due course, consumers are free to organise boycotts of discriminatory producers. Also, as I mentioned, there will be very many people who continue to supply to minorities.

Importantly, you retain your credibility and moral high ground (surely you want the moral high ground), and your protect your right to refuse service to white supremacists, etc.

The anti-discrimination laws (when it relates to regulating producers' ability to refuse service) set a dangerous precedent by allowing the government to enforce its views on a sizable and unwilling populace, and even encourages the defenders of those laws to simply name the critics and victims of enforced labour as "despicable" or something along those lines.

Anyway, that is my take on this debate. It is messy and incomplete, but I did my best. You don't have to agree with me, but I hereby make my case.