❝❝Under what circumstances can the state compel an individual to provide a product or service?

---

Which leads to the next question.

Is it moral for the state to compel a product or service?

---

I didn't ask about religion, although obviously I'm working in that direction. From what I understand, it's illegal for a doctor to refuse treatment if it's required to save a life.

But let's back up a bit. Where do you draw the line? kenofken mentioned civil rights cases. That can get a little selective, this group must be defended and protected, but that group doesn't get the protection.

---

Why should religion be an issue of law at all?

I can't help but think that by fighting their battles on their terms using their definitions we're ceding most of the battle before we begin.

Maybe it's time to take a tangent that they won't expect and don't know how to defend against.

---

I think it's "unproductive" because everyone has been taught that the two should be mixed.

It's also the keystone to the "religious right." Everything they do is predicated on forcing their beliefs down everyone else's throats. Arguing over which religion is better just sets the keystone deeper.

---

My point with all this is one part of freedom is choice. Choosing what to do. Choosing Who or What to worship. Choosing what people you want to be around. Consenting adults making their own choice.

That means that people are going to make choices we don't like. That's okay, we make choices they don't like either.

Compelling choice "for the public good" means you're taking away their choice. And yours too eventually.

Life saving medical care suddenly includes abortion. Or cosmetic surgery. Or yes, gender reassignment. Your "right" means that someone else must give up their freedom and give you service.

The "right" to public accommodation moves from providing lodging or meals to requiring cake decorating.

Giving preferred treatment to one minority because of past discrimination means ignoring the current needs of another minority today.

The choice to "do the right thing" is no longer a choice, it's compulsory. Even if you don't agree with the choice or the law that compels you. And if it's a bad choice, you're forbidden from doing anything else.

---

You can't have freedom without consequences.

If I blow off my neighbor asking for a favor, that means she's going to ignore me when I ask for something. If my plumber uses bad parts to fix my leaky sink, I'm going to look for someone else the next time. And I'll probably talk him down to my friends and relatives when they're looking for a plumber.

But these consequences exist outside a legal framework. Mostly we don't need the legality and formality. Sometimes the legal framework can go too far, that's when government removes choice (and continuing improvement) "for our own good."

And yes, sometimes people abuse the legal framework. That's when we need the legal framework for protection. But that isn't every day or even most days.❞❞

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

Tags: state ∙ individual ∙ product ∙ service ∙ compulsory ∙ consequences ∙ legal framework ∙ religion ∙ civil rights ∙ cosmetic surgery ∙ gender reassignment ∙ service ∙ abortion ∙ minority ∙ religious right ∙ freedom ∙ choice ∙ the public good