Subject:
|
Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:51:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4576 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> Dave Schuler wrote:
> > I'm not sure that "force" is the right word to use there, since it
> > carries a lot of baggage in a libertarian context (re: the initiation
> > thereof). If he agreed, even implicitly, to non-discrimination in
> > his license (i.e., the contract), then he is in breach of contract if
> > he thereafter discriminates. The only force used against him is the
> > force required to enforce the terms of the contract, as agreed at the
> > time of contract. This would be true, I think, even in a free market
> > system where some analogous license/contract framework were[1] in
> > place.
>
> Well, perhaps force is too strong, though I'm comfortable with anything the
> government requires as being forced in that ultimately, if you refuse, the
> government could escalate to use of force.
I'm not so sure. If the individual citizen enters into and then defaults upon
the social contract, then that's not initiation of force--it's enforcement of
terms.
> I agree that the pharmacist's contract may very well require him to not
> discriminate. I was talking in the general sense. In a free market system,
> the pharmacist might well be licensed by a Christian agency, and thus the
> licensing itself might not include a non-discrimination clause for
> contraceptives (and might even require it's licensees to NOT dispense
> contraceptives).
Now that's interesting. In a true market of options, then a choice to provide
or exclude drugs would be acceptable, since presumably a particular drug that's
forbidden in one place would be available elsewhere. I'd still worry that
certain employers might require employees to participate in the employer-chosen
plan, under the claim that the employees are free to choose to go elsewhere for
employment. Sure, that's fine on paper, but such a choice isn't always
available, and in practice it might amount to an employer-imposed tax on
employees.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
| (...) Well, perhaps force is too strong, though I'm comfortable with anything the government requires as being forced in that ultimately, if you refuse, the government could escalate to use of force. I agree that the pharmacist's contract may very (...) (22 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
