Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]If that is a “dogma” that you dispute, please either insert another form of government than “democracy,” or take a position of a priori “governance relativism.”
I'm not trying to dispute that dogma, nor am I taking a relativistic position. All I'm trying to do is point out that even democracy has dogmas; so every time someone says "We es S1--Sn except Sx. Should the government prevent her from doing so?[/b]
I'm not trying to dispute that dogma, nor am I taking a relativistic position. All I'm trying to do is point out that even democracy has dogmas; so every time someone says "Well, democracy's better than other forms of government because laws and statutes are open for public debate" -- I have to say, "Not absolutely".
I have already acceded to the “not absolutely.” Again, “absolutely” is not a term I have used. You have yet to make an objection against church-state separation: do you have one?
I'm sorry -- but that's how reason works. If A implies B but a similar A' does not imply B' then you have to demonstrate why it is not the case. You can't simply say "There's a difference, I know it" and let that be it. That's almost (shall we say?) a "religious" attitude.
What is a “similar” A? If it’s similar, but not the same, of course it might not also imply B. How similar is universal suffrage for women to universal suffrage for chimpanzees? Why should the implications of one extend to the other?
But the truth is -- how many lines it crosses was never a factor for you in the first place. If 99% of the American public decided to severely restrict liberties, I'd wager you will throw yourself behind the remaining 1% despite the fact that it cuts across "less" lines. You argue for these "fundamental principles" because you think they are right; not because you think they are popular.
Of course it is a factor—now, you might argue that’s because I value a more open society, in which even those who disagree with what might be my personal “fundamental principles” have a voice and a vote. You might say that that is part of the “package” of my fundamental principles.
Suppose I am a member of one social group (Group 1), and you are a member of another Group 2 in a democratic society. Suppose that these two groups are comprised of individuals who are equally franchised as voting members of the body politic. Suppose that the two groups have a strong disagreement about a certain issue X. Suppose further that X, of itself, is not an issue that threatens the existence of the democratic political system of which the two groups are part (e.g., X is not a declaration for the overthrow of the democracy). Under what circumstances would you attempt to disenfranchise Group 1 from participating in the political process (i.e., close that line) in order to achieve your position on X for the whole of the society?
Suppose a government agency provides a suite of products/services S1--Sn. A qualified person P of religion R is willing to provide all these services except a particular one Sx that is against the tenets of her religion. Should the agency refuse her employment?
Depends. Does the particular job-opening generally require provision of that whole suite of services. Can a job reasonably be “made” that provides for all but Sx? Should the agency be obligated to hire persons of different religions/ideologies who refuse to perform different S’s? How far does it go? It seems to be an unanswerable question at that level of generality.
Further, suppose P wanted to start her own private agency that provides S1--Sn except Sx. Should the government prevent her from doing so?
That depends on whether the government, for whatever reasons, has decided that the particular suite of services should be provided via a government monopoly, and whether it is presently lawful to open such a private agency. That would likely have been a matter of legislation, and would have to be changed through legislation. If it is presently lawful for her to do so, the government cannot prevent her without seeking the appropriate legislation, which will be subject to debate. There are cases where private firms are in direct competition with governmental agencies that provide the same services (e.g., Federal Express and the Postal Service).
Again, there is no blanket answer at the level of generality in your question. Is the intent of the private agency, for example, to engage in unlawful discrimination by not providing services to certain groups?