Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sebelius v Hobby Lobby

EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 8:53:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm interested in having an open discussion about this topic.

For those of you who don't know, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores is a Supreme Court case revolving around the rights of a corporation and the Affordable Care Act - specifically, the mandate for corporations to provide birth control for women. Religious employers have already been exempted.

Now, there are several interesting facts that should be taken into account.

1) Under Citizens United, corporations are considered people. Does this case then extend the right of freedom of religion to corporations? Or does it roll back on Citizens United and not grant corporations a right granted to the people?

2) Birth control, as I understand it, is used for more than just birth control. It has numerous other health benefits [1], such as lowering risk of cancer, PMS relief, etc.

3) Many of the organizations, including Hobby Lobby, already provide Viagra but not birth control [2]. Is this indicative of sexism or something else entirely?

So the question I see popping up is this: Do private corporations have the right to impose a sense of religion on everyone regardless of their rights? Or do the people waive that liberty when they agree to work for the company?

[1] http://www.webmd.com...

[2] http://www.politico.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 9:26:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 8:53:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Going to bed, so I doubt I will respond tonight...
I'm interested in having an open discussion about this topic.

For those of you who don't know, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores is a Supreme Court case revolving around the rights of a corporation and the Affordable Care Act - specifically, the mandate for corporations to provide birth control for women. Religious employers have already been exempted.

Now, there are several interesting facts that should be taken into account.

1) Under Citizens United, corporations are considered people. Does this case then extend the right of freedom of religion to corporations? Or does it roll back on Citizens United and not grant corporations a right granted to the people?

First, CU did not establish corporations are people, but it did afford them speech rights.
Corporations are hard to account for, since there are shareholders, but yes, they should be allowed to run their business, especially the benefits they offer their employees, the way they want.

Let me ask you this:
Should a Catholic hospital be forced to offer abortion services?

The only reason this is an issue is because the law mandates this.


2) Birth control, as I understand it, is used for more than just birth control. It has numerous other health benefits [1], such as lowering risk of cancer, PMS relief, etc.
True, but that isn't the issue at hand.
The issue is: should a business owner (assume the corporation is private and owned 100% by one man) be forced to offer a benefit he disapproves of? If he wanted to split hairs and say, only for medical reasons, not sexual ones, could it be used, would that change things? I don't see why, plus it is almost impossible to prove an infraction.

3) Many of the organizations, including Hobby Lobby, already provide Viagra but not birth control [2]. Is this indicative of sexism or something else entirely?
Religiously, not really, since sex is to procreate, and viagra allows procreation, while BC does not. They are actually quite opposite.


So the question I see popping up is this: Do private corporations have the right to impose a sense of religion on everyone regardless of their rights? Or do the people waive that liberty when they agree to work for the company?

The latter.
Tell me:
If I am Christian, can I force my employees to take Sundays off? You better believe it, if I say we are closed.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 9:35:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. Corporations are nothing more than multiple individuals acting. Reducing them to a single individual is a legal convenience that happens not to lead to different conclusions.

2. Hobby Lobby presently provides insurance for routine birth control (Not that it should have to, insurance for birth control is a moronic concept that has nothing to do with the purpose of insurance). What it doesn't want to cover is emergency contraception (which it also shouldn't have to because freedom, even though emergency contraception insurance makes slightly more sense qua insurance. Emergency contraceptives, e.g. Plan B, do not have any purpose except their contraceptive purpose to my knowledge. Hobby Lobby opposes them because it considers them to induce abortion (the truth of which proposition depends on how one defines "abortion." Religious types and medical types don't really agree on a definition. It does, however, prevent an already-fertilized egg from latching on and deriving nutrition from the mother, which seems to be the religious definition). No Hobby Lobby employee will be unable to get the daily pill or similar things for treating menstruation and whatnot whatever the result of the case.

3. See 2. Hobby Lobby's objection is to sponsorship of abortion, not sponsorship of sex.

So the question I see popping up is this: Do private corporations have the right to impose a sense of religion on everyone regardless of their rights?
No, nor does Hobby Lobby seek to. It seeks to impose a sense of religion on its own private affairs with other consenting adults.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 10:30:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 9:26:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/31/2014 8:53:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Going to bed, so I doubt I will respond tonight...
I'm interested in having an open discussion about this topic.

For those of you who don't know, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores is a Supreme Court case revolving around the rights of a corporation and the Affordable Care Act - specifically, the mandate for corporations to provide birth control for women. Religious employers have already been exempted.

Now, there are several interesting facts that should be taken into account.

1) Under Citizens United, corporations are considered people. Does this case then extend the right of freedom of religion to corporations? Or does it roll back on Citizens United and not grant corporations a right granted to the people?

First, CU did not establish corporations are people, but it did afford them speech rights.
Corporations are hard to account for, since there are shareholders, but yes, they should be allowed to run their business, especially the benefits they offer their employees, the way they want.

Why?

Let me ask you this:
Should a Catholic hospital be forced to offer abortion services?

Seeing as it is a hospital providing a service to people who do not necessarily consent to go there...yes, probably.

The only reason this is an issue is because the law mandates this.



2) Birth control, as I understand it, is used for more than just birth control. It has numerous other health benefits [1], such as lowering risk of cancer, PMS relief, etc.
True, but that isn't the issue at hand.
The issue is: should a business owner (assume the corporation is private and owned 100% by one man) be forced to offer a benefit he disapproves of? If he wanted to split hairs and say, only for medical reasons, not sexual ones, could it be used, would that change things? I don't see why, plus it is almost impossible to prove an infraction.

But should the business owner force everyone using his business to believe as he does?

3) Many of the organizations, including Hobby Lobby, already provide Viagra but not birth control [2]. Is this indicative of sexism or something else entirely?
Religiously, not really, since sex is to procreate, and viagra allows procreation, while BC does not. They are actually quite opposite.

Conversely, BC would also go a long way toward lowering abortion rates.

So the question I see popping up is this: Do private corporations have the right to impose a sense of religion on everyone regardless of their rights? Or do the people waive that liberty when they agree to work for the company?

The latter.
Tell me:
If I am Christian, can I force my employees to take Sundays off? You better believe it, if I say we are closed.

That's not a good or service you're providing them.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 10:33:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 9:35:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1. Corporations are nothing more than multiple individuals acting. Reducing them to a single individual is a legal convenience that happens not to lead to different conclusions

Sure..

2. Hobby Lobby presently provides insurance for routine birth control (Not that it should have to, insurance for birth control is a moronic concept that has nothing to do with the purpose of insurance). What it doesn't want to cover is emergency contraception (which it also shouldn't have to because freedom, even though emergency contraception insurance makes slightly more sense qua insurance. Emergency contraceptives, e.g. Plan B, do not have any purpose except their contraceptive purpose to my knowledge. Hobby Lobby opposes them because it considers them to induce abortion (the truth of which proposition depends on how one defines "abortion." Religious types and medical types don't really agree on a definition. It does, however, prevent an already-fertilized egg from latching on and deriving nutrition from the mother, which seems to be the religious definition). No Hobby Lobby employee will be unable to get the daily pill or similar things for treating menstruation and whatnot whatever the result of the case.

The issue with the ACA is all the health insurance coverage it mandates, which just happens to include birth control. It is not, however, limited to birth control, and in this case, the corporation does not have the liberty of picking and choosing which aspects of the ACA to follow.

3. See 2. Hobby Lobby's objection is to sponsorship of abortion, not sponsorship of sex.

Would not birth control lower abortion rates?

So the question I see popping up is this: Do private corporations have the right to impose a sense of religion on everyone regardless of their rights?
No, nor does Hobby Lobby seek to. It seeks to impose a sense of religion on its own private affairs with other consenting adults.

Once the service is provided to its employees and the public, it is no longer a private affair. The owner might believe something, but that hardly gives him the right to force everyone else to abide by it.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 11:31:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the question is: "does a publicly traded company's leadership's religious beliefs trump individual rights to freedom of religion and medical privacy?" If you answer yes, then Hobby Lobby wins. If you answer no, then we all win.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 12:18:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 8:53:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'm interested in having an open discussion about this topic.

For those of you who don't know, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores is a Supreme Court case revolving around the rights of a corporation and the Affordable Care Act - specifically, the mandate for corporations to provide birth control for women. Religious employers have already been exempted.

Now, there are several interesting facts that should be taken into account.

1) Under Citizens United, corporations are considered people. Does this case then extend the right of freedom of religion to corporations? Or does it roll back on Citizens United and not grant corporations a right granted to the people?

Corporations are nothing more than a group of people who come together as an organized effort.

Restricting the rights of "so called" corporations is just restricting the rights of people.


2) Birth control, as I understand it, is used for more than just birth control. It has numerous other health benefits [1], such as lowering risk of cancer, PMS relief, etc.

Even if this is true, the main purpose, by far, is birth control.


3) Many of the organizations, including Hobby Lobby, already provide Viagra but not birth control [2]. Is this indicative of sexism or something else entirely?

Its indicative of free, voluntary associations of people being allowed to decide what benefits to offer employees and employees, in turn, get to decide whether or not to work for Hobby Lobby. What a concept!


So the question I see popping up is this: Do private corporations have the right to impose a sense of religion on everyone regardless of their rights? Or do the people waive that liberty when they agree to work for the company?


The premise of this "question" is absurd.

If I hire someone to mow my lawn, I'm not imposing anything on them if I don't provide them free birth control. What a silly argument.

The only "imposing" going on here is the government imposing this silly and cruel bill on this entire nation.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 1:48:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 9:35:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1. Corporations are nothing more than multiple individuals acting. Reducing them to a single individual is a legal convenience that happens not to lead to different conclusions.

I hate this argument, because it ignores the legal shield corporations get. If it was really "nothing more than multiple individuals acting", then I could sue them all into oblivion. But liability is limited in a corporate structure to the corporate entity alone. Which means that, therefore, these multiple individuals are protected from the consequences of their actions by the legal construct of the corporation, yet also get to use that legal construct to exercise their rights. It's incredibly one-sided.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 7:12:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The court has already recognized you don't stop being religious when you enter the market. In the case of Hobby Lobby you have a small in scale employer that offers higher wages, closes early, and closes on Sunday. They do so because of the altruistic beliefs that echo throughout their religion. No one would argue this is a bad thing, and the court wont either.

What is at issue here is the penalty they will incur if they don't provide insurance that includes contraception. They believe it would violate their religious conscience to sign the forms associated with the penalty, and by paying the penalty they're indirectly complicit in an act their religion is so intensely opposed.

They believe the claim is reinforced under RFRA which states:

The Government shall not substantially burden a person"s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person"s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person"


(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

The sustainability of the law, women's health, and the health and insurance costs on all employees qualify as compelling government interest.

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The penalty is clearly a least restrictive means, and I highly doubt the court will go as far as to say paying a tax violates religious expression.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 4:19:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 10:33:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
The issue with the ACA is all the health insurance coverage it mandates which just happens to include birth control. It is not, however, limited to birth control, and in this case, the corporation does not have the liberty of picking and choosing which aspects of the ACA to follow.
Which is, you know, one of the bad points of such laws, and why I oppose them in general.


3. See 2. Hobby Lobby's objection is to sponsorship of abortion, not sponsorship of sex.

Would not birth control lower abortion rates?
Emergency contraception IS an abortion for Hobby Lobby's purposes, which makes your statement false in the relevant context. If you're paying attention, the kind of birth control that reduces abortion rates in the sense Hobby Lobby is concerned about abortions is something Hobby Lobby is not contesting. It;'s almost as though you didn't read the post you're replying to.

Once the service is provided to its employees and the public, it is no longer a private affair.
Nothing here is being offered to that mythical beast "the public." The service is private, for it occurs between consenting adults. It's not as though Hobby Lobby demanded tax dollars or something for it. It's an exchange of private property between nongovernment persons.

The owner might believe something, but that hardly gives him the right to force everyone else to abide by it.
The owner IS NOT FORCING ANYTHING. The only party using force here is THE GOVERNMENT.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 4:23:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 1:48:32 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/31/2014 9:35:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1. Corporations are nothing more than multiple individuals acting. Reducing them to a single individual is a legal convenience that happens not to lead to different conclusions.

I hate this argument, because it ignores the legal shield corporations get. If it was really "nothing more than multiple individuals acting", then I could sue them all into oblivion.
I also oppose the limitation of liability toward third parties (limited liability should exist only toward parties who have signed onto the limitation of liability toward them, e.g. investors). If Bob drives a truck that knocks down your wall, he should be liable, you aren't a party to the contract. If someone else ordered him to drive it in a manner that one would reasonably expect to lead to the knocking down of walls one doesn't own, that person TOO should be liable.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 4:26:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The sustainability of the law, women's health, and the health and insurance costs on all employees qualify as compelling government interest.
Which of any of those is even mentioned in the Constitution as matters for the USFG to be interested in? None of them is even interstate commerce (since it's illegal to engage in interstate insurance transactions).

The penalty is clearly a least restrictive means
The least restrictive means to accomplish what? You haven't even defined an action, just a domain of action.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 6:34:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 4:19:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/31/2014 10:33:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
The issue with the ACA is all the health insurance coverage it mandates which just happens to include birth control. It is not, however, limited to birth control, and in this case, the corporation does not have the liberty of picking and choosing which aspects of the ACA to follow.
Which is, you know, one of the bad points of such laws, and why I oppose them in general.

Fair enough.



3. See 2. Hobby Lobby's objection is to sponsorship of abortion, not sponsorship of sex.

Would not birth control lower abortion rates?
Emergency contraception IS an abortion for Hobby Lobby's purposes, which makes your statement false in the relevant context. If you're paying attention, the kind of birth control that reduces abortion rates in the sense Hobby Lobby is concerned about abortions is something Hobby Lobby is not contesting. It;'s almost as though you didn't read the post you're replying to.

So Hobby Lobby considers them directly equal? Birth control and abortion? (I understand Catholic teaching on this - that a fetus is human the instant fertilization occurs. I am not not interested in a discussion on when life begins.) How about condoms?

Once the service is provided to its employees and the public, it is no longer a private affair.
Nothing here is being offered to that mythical beast "the public." The service is private, for it occurs between consenting adults. It's not as though Hobby Lobby demanded tax dollars or something for it. It's an exchange of private property between nongovernment persons.

Alright. How does this then apply with Hobby Lobby making money off of abortion-related activity? HL invests in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan-B morning-after pill, and Pfizer, the maker of abortion-inducing drugs like Crytotec and Prostin E2. So it seems a little hypocritical to cry "religious freedom" which is what their argument is based on.

The owner might believe something, but that hardly gives him the right to force everyone else to abide by it.
The owner IS NOT FORCING ANYTHING. The only party using force here is THE GOVERNMENT.

If someone wants coverage and the owner denies it because of his own religious beliefs, there is force involved.

As to the government, I'm not denying that it's forcing this. Of course it is. That's how it does pretty much anything.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 6:54:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the government needs to mind it's own business. They are gaining more, and more control over us. Remember. As government grows, freedom declines. We need to put a stop to this while we still can. Assuming it's not already too late.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 9:10:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 4:19:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/31/2014 10:33:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
The issue with the ACA is all the health insurance coverage it mandates which just happens to include birth control. It is not, however, limited to birth control, and in this case, the corporation does not have the liberty of picking and choosing which aspects of the ACA to follow.
Which is, you know, one of the bad points of such laws, and why I oppose them in general.

Yes, you oppose them because freedom and liberty, irrespective of the consequences of anything. Such absolutionist statements are poorly suited to dealing with the world, which is not so starkly divided.

Once the service is provided to its employees and the public, it is no longer a private affair.
Nothing here is being offered to that mythical beast "the public." The service is private, for it occurs between consenting adults. It's not as though Hobby Lobby demanded tax dollars or something for it. It's an exchange of private property between nongovernment persons.

The public refers to people at large. Since Hobby Lobby is not being particularly selective, it is offering a service to the public.


The owner might believe something, but that hardly gives him the right to force everyone else to abide by it.
The owner IS NOT FORCING ANYTHING. The only party using force here is THE GOVERNMENT.

Yes, they ARE. Libertarians have this notion that force only exists if you are threatening, explicitly or implicitly, to wave a freaking gun around and shoot someone. Bullocks. Force is /anything/ that influences another person. /Anything/. It isn't immoral, it isn't unethical, it's /anything/ we use to influence others.

Don't cover someone's medicine who can't afford it, and they work for me? Their inability to pay their medicine bills easily makes them have to go into debt or otherwise suffer financial troubles to pay for the medicine, thus making it so that I can make working conditions worse--if they quit, they very well may not to be able to find a better job, especially if they have a poor financial situation.

Your definition of force is illogical, and not grounded in how the world actually works.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:10:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 6:34:22 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
So Hobby Lobby considers them directly equal? Birth control and abortion? (I understand Catholic teaching on this - that a fetus is human the instant fertilization occurs. I am not not interested in a discussion on when life begins.) How about condoms?
Again, pay attention. Hobby Lobby has no objection to condoms, the pill your sister takes daily, depo-provera, etc. It objects only to "the morning after pill," the "week after pill", and IUDs. Hobby Lobby does not equate the concepts "birth control" and "abortion," it disagrees with certain researchers about what side of the divide 2 drugs and one device fall on, because it alleges those 2 drugs and 1 device are able to prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting, instead of merely preventing fertilization of an embryo (the birth control concept).

Alright. How does this then apply with Hobby Lobby making money off of abortion-related activity? HL invests in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan-B morning-after pill, and Pfizer, the maker of abortion-inducing drugs like Crytotec and Prostin E2. So it seems a little hypocritical to cry "religious freedom" which is what their argument is based on.
I had to google your claim here. Hobby Lobby appears to own no stock in either of those companies. As far as I can tell from what news articles state and from what I know from reading a similar benefits package at a previous workplace: Hobby Lobby provides a 401k retirement plan that matches employee contributions to a given set of mutual funds among which the employee chooses. The mutual funds were probably selected by a Wall Street subcontractor.

Even if Hobby Lobby's execs got the news about this and objected to this vague relationship with these companies, they're kind of stuck in that regard. It would be a major business ethics problem for them to try to disentangle from these mutual funds, their employees already have money bound up in them. The most it could do is grandfather in existing investors in those funds while not offering new investments.

They may well view there as being some sort of difference between these things beyond the quantitative degrees of separation. They may have no idea. In any case, it's not for the Court to police the sincerity of religious beliefs.

If someone wants coverage and the owner denies it because of his own religious beliefs, there is force involved.
Absurd. I want YOU to provide ME with money for my supplements. You aren't doing it. By your logic, you're involving force in the matter. In fact, however, you aren't doing ANYTHING w/r/t my supplements, and Hobby Lobby is, very consciously, trying to not do ANYTHING about its employees access to what it views as abortifacients. It isn't holding up a gun and saying "No, employee, you may not use Plan B." It's sitting back and saying "I do not agree to provide you with Plan B. Purchase it with your own money if you would like to."

Where is Hobby Lobby's gun? Where is the violated contract? Upon what of the employee's belongings has Hobby Lobby trespassed? Nowhere, none, there is no force.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:33:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 9:10:35 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Yes, you oppose them because freedom and liberty, irrespective of the consequences of anything. Such absolutionist statements are poorly suited to dealing with the world, which is not so starkly divided.
The world is indeed divided into situations where force is introduced and situations where it is not. The world is divided in many ways. And in any given context, it can only be dealt with in absolutes. Either I have eaten today or I have not. I am alive or I am dead. I hit these keys to produce this sentence, not whatever keys I want, if this is the sentence I seek to produce. If I leap off a cliff, and the earth and I both still have sufficient mass, I will fall.

The public refers to people at large.
I'm a person. I'm at large. Hobby Lobby isn't offering me anything, unless I enter its store and consent to pay for something.

Yes, they ARE. Libertarians have this notion that force only exists if you are threatening, explicitly or implicitly, to wave a freaking gun around and shoot someone. Bullocks. Force is /anything/ that influences another person. /Anything/.
We already have a word for that. It's called social interaction. Libertarians treat the word "force" the way we do because that is the concept involved in the word force. in this context, and its the best word there is for that concept. Would you rather I use "coercion?" But you would probably tell me that means something else too, because you want to argue definitions instead of ideas, so instead, I'm going to ask right out if you accept as referring to the concept you and I both know I am identifying, so you can either find a way for us to use language to communicate that satisfies your strange urge to redefine "force", or you can communicate your intent to avoid ideas.

It isn't immoral, it isn't unethical, it's /anything/ we use to influence others.
OP certainly doesn't seem to think so btw. And OP isn't libertarian.

Don't cover someone's medicine who can't afford it, and they work for me? Their inability to pay their medicine bills easily makes them have to go into debt or otherwise suffer financial troubles to pay for the medicine
But you aren't the cause. Do you know how I know you aren't the cause? Because if you are deleted from the picture, the problem still managed to happen. You still aren't covering their medicine bills if you don't exist. And, if you don't exist, you can't cause anything. QED, "failure to cover" is not a valid cause of anything.

Your definition of force is illogical, and not grounded in how the world actually works.
Definitions aren't determined by logic, they are tools used in logic. Tools formed by use.

And in the world as it actually works, there are people with guns, who demand you do things. I use the word force to refer to a real phenomenon, and distinguish it from other real phenomenon (people who do nothing with respect to you, or offer things subject to your consent). It is literally impossible for a definition to be any more grounded in the world than that, that is the purpose of definitions (unlike your attempt at a definition, which attempts to reduce the degree to which we are able to distinguish phenomena from one another). Your claim makes no sense whatsoever. If you object to libertarianism, object on actual grounds instead of wordplay please.

If you're intellectually honest (I don't predict you are, but just in case), you badly need to read the following, to get some idea of what the actual purpose of having a word is:

http://lesswrong.com...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:34:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Not that I agree with everything in the link, but it's hard to read it without stimulating useful thoughts.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:36:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 10:10:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/1/2014 6:34:22 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
So Hobby Lobby considers them directly equal? Birth control and abortion? (I understand Catholic teaching on this - that a fetus is human the instant fertilization occurs. I am not not interested in a discussion on when life begins.) How about condoms?
Again, pay attention. Hobby Lobby has no objection to condoms, the pill your sister takes daily, depo-provera, etc. It objects only to "the morning after pill," the "week after pill", and IUDs. Hobby Lobby does not equate the concepts "birth control" and "abortion," it disagrees with certain researchers about what side of the divide 2 drugs and one device fall on, because it alleges those 2 drugs and 1 device are able to prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting, instead of merely preventing fertilization of an embryo (the birth control concept).

Alright. How does this then apply with Hobby Lobby making money off of abortion-related activity? HL invests in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan-B morning-after pill, and Pfizer, the maker of abortion-inducing drugs like Crytotec and Prostin E2. So it seems a little hypocritical to cry "religious freedom" which is what their argument is based on.
I had to google your claim here. Hobby Lobby appears to own no stock in either of those companies. As far as I can tell from what news articles state and from what I know from reading a similar benefits package at a previous workplace: Hobby Lobby provides a 401k retirement plan that matches employee contributions to a given set of mutual funds among which the employee chooses. The mutual funds were probably selected by a Wall Street subcontractor.

I came across it while looking up information. I'll have to see if I can find it again. But even if it is just a 401k and even if it is a subcontractor rather than any executives - two hypotheticals - it still creates a hypocritical foundation.

Even if Hobby Lobby's execs got the news about this and objected to this vague relationship with these companies, they're kind of stuck in that regard. It would be a major business ethics problem for them to try to disentangle from these mutual funds, their employees already have money bound up in them. The most it could do is grandfather in existing investors in those funds while not offering new investments.

They may well view there as being some sort of difference between these things beyond the quantitative degrees of separation. They may have no idea. In any case, it's not for the Court to police the sincerity of religious beliefs.

If someone wants coverage and the owner denies it because of his own religious beliefs, there is force involved.
Absurd. I want YOU to provide ME with money for my supplements. You aren't doing it. By your logic, you're involving force in the matter. In fact, however, you aren't doing ANYTHING w/r/t my supplements, and Hobby Lobby is, very consciously, trying to not do ANYTHING about its employees access to what it views as abortifacients. It isn't holding up a gun and saying "No, employee, you may not use Plan B." It's sitting back and saying "I do not agree to provide you with Plan B. Purchase it with your own money if you would like to."

Where is Hobby Lobby's gun? Where is the violated contract? Upon what of the employee's belongings has Hobby Lobby trespassed? Nowhere, none, there is no force.

I think Citrakayah provided an excellent response to this.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:39:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think Citrakayah provided an excellent response to this.
Did you even read Citrakayah's "response?" Speak for yourself, don't let Citrakayah speak for you, because you are far better at it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:40:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 4:26:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The sustainability of the law, women's health, and the health and insurance costs on all employees qualify as compelling government interest.
Which of any of those is even mentioned in the Constitution as matters for the USFG to be interested in? None of them is even interstate commerce (since it's illegal to engage in interstate insurance transactions).

The penalty is clearly a least restrictive means
The least restrictive means to accomplish what? You haven't even defined an action, just a domain of action.

Why do you think "compelling interests" means Constitutional rights?

Maintaining the uniformity of the ACAs health care plans is an interest. They enacted it. They're responsible for it's implementation. Hence a compelling interest.

I defined the action quite clearly. Instead of providing a healthcare plan that Hobby Lobby morally disagrees with they can pay a tax. That doesn't violate their conscience if a business can even have one and it also takes care of the states compelling interest in implementing the law.

Problem solved.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:41:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
On the "people at large" thing, note too that places are far more selective about employees than customers. If you think otherwise, you've never applied for a job.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:48:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 10:41:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
On the "people at large" thing, note too that places are far more selective about employees than customers. If you think otherwise, you've never applied for a job.

No they are not. They have an incentive to minimize turnover but that doesn't mean they're selective.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:50:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 10:40:37 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/1/2014 4:26:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The sustainability of the law, women's health, and the health and insurance costs on all employees qualify as compelling government interest.
Which of any of those is even mentioned in the Constitution as matters for the USFG to be interested in? None of them is even interstate commerce (since it's illegal to engage in interstate insurance transactions).

The penalty is clearly a least restrictive means
The least restrictive means to accomplish what? You haven't even defined an action, just a domain of action.


Why do you think "compelling interests" means Constitutional rights?
I didn't say anything about Constitutional rights. "Compelling interests" have as their upper possible bound the Constitution's enumerated powers.


Maintaining the uniformity of the ACAs health care plans is an interest.
Where does the Constitution enumerate that as among the government's powers?

They enacted it. They're responsible for it's implementation. Hence a compelling interest.
I don't think you understand the legal concept "compelling interest." The USFG remains theoretically a government of enumerated powers. If the Constitution doesn't mention something, it is not a legitimate matter for the USFG to take interest in, barring amendment.


I defined the action quite clearly. Instead of providing a healthcare plan that Hobby Lobby morally disagrees with they can pay a tax.
You didn't understand the question. What action are you claiming the USFG intends to accomplish?

That doesn't violate their conscience if a business can even have one
Wait, you're saying it's not a violation of freedom of conscience to mandate people with a certain belief pay a tax?

Okay. The state wants everyone to go around without a yamaka. But Jews can pay a 10,000 dollar tax instead. Not a violation of freedom of conscience, what's the problem?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:52:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 10:48:42 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:41:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
On the "people at large" thing, note too that places are far more selective about employees than customers. If you think otherwise, you've never applied for a job.

No they are not. They have an incentive to minimize turnover but that doesn't mean they're selective.

So you're telling me you've never been interviewed for a job and not been hired.
Hmm.

My experience differs.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 11:23:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Where does the Constitution enumerate that as among the government's powers?

Commerce Clause. Taxing and Spending Clause.

Wait, you're saying it's not a violation of freedom of conscience to mandate people with a certain belief pay a tax?

So you're acknowledging it's a tax. I guess we can move past this compelling interest holding pattern.

Okay. The state wants everyone to go around without a yamaka. But Jews can pay a 10,000 dollar tax instead. Not a violation of freedom of conscience, what's the problem?

First off your hypothetical is ridiculous.

But to your flimsy point Healthcare is not religious in nature therefore purchasing it can't possibly violate someones conscience.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 9:04:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 10:39:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I think Citrakayah provided an excellent response to this.
Did you even read Citrakayah's "response?" Speak for yourself, don't let Citrakayah speak for you, because you are far better at it.

I suppose that's a compliment?

It's more that I liked the idea behind his post. Harm isn't a linear concept, and to treat it like one is disingenuous. The same applies to force. Just because something has no short-term perceptible consequences doesn't mean there aren't any.

The Affordable Care Act has passed every branch of the federal government. If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court classified it as a tax.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 11:58:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 10:33:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/1/2014 9:10:35 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Yes, you oppose them because freedom and liberty, irrespective of the consequences of anything. Such absolutionist statements are poorly suited to dealing with the world, which is not so starkly divided.
The world is indeed divided into situations where force is introduced and situations where it is not. The world is divided in many ways. And in any given context, it can only be dealt with in absolutes. Either I have eaten today or I have not. I am alive or I am dead. I hit these keys to produce this sentence, not whatever keys I want, if this is the sentence I seek to produce. If I leap off a cliff, and the earth and I both still have sufficient mass, I will fall.

Yes, whether or not you have eaten is polar. The notions of freedom and liberty, however, are most certainly not.

I'm a person. I'm at large. Hobby Lobby isn't offering me anything, unless I enter its store and consent to pay for something.

In otherwords, they aren't offering you anything but they are offering you something.

Yes, they ARE. Libertarians have this notion that force only exists if you are threatening, explicitly or implicitly, to wave a freaking gun around and shoot someone. Bullocks. Force is /anything/ that influences another person. /Anything/.
We already have a word for that. It's called social interaction.

Social interaction uses force. That's how we can get someone to, for example, agree to something they might otherwise not agree to.

Libertarians treat the word "force" the way we do because that is the concept involved in the word force. in this context, and its the best word there is for that concept. Would you rather I use "coercion?" But you would probably tell me that means something else too, because you want to argue definitions instead of ideas, so instead, I'm going to ask right out if you accept as referring to the concept you and I both know I am identifying, so you can either find a way for us to use language to communicate that satisfies your strange urge to redefine "force", or you can communicate your intent to avoid ideas.

The concept you are identifying is "threat of taking physical action." The problem is that calling it "force" or "coercion" ignores the other forms those things can take besides waving around a gun. Social pressures, economic pressures, political pressures... these things are all forces that influence us.

It isn't immoral, it isn't unethical, it's /anything/ we use to influence others.
OP certainly doesn't seem to think so btw. And OP isn't libertarian.

Irrelevant.

Don't cover someone's medicine who can't afford it, and they work for me? Their inability to pay their medicine bills easily makes them have to go into debt or otherwise suffer financial troubles to pay for the medicine
But you aren't the cause. Do you know how I know you aren't the cause? Because if you are deleted from the picture, the problem still managed to happen. You still aren't covering their medicine bills if you don't exist. And, if you don't exist, you can't cause anything. QED, "failure to cover" is not a valid cause of anything.

Doesn't matter if you're the direct cause. Your lack of action is a factor. I do not accept the acts and omissions doctrine.

Your definition of force is illogical, and not grounded in how the world actually works.
Definitions aren't determined by logic, they are tools used in logic. Tools formed by use.

That depends on the definition of definition here. While your argument might be valid from a linguistic perspective, from a philosophical perspective the main terms we use--and you are using force in a philosophical/ethical context--do need to be grounded in logic, because the underlying assumptions in the definitions are used to make the arguments. The libertarian idea of force as bad relies on the idea of force being a specific thing which is fundamentally different from other things; if this isn't true then that undercuts the argument.

And in the world as it actually works, there are people with guns, who demand you do things. I use the word force to refer to a real phenomenon, and distinguish it from other real phenomenon (people who do nothing with respect to you, or offer things subject to your consent). It is literally impossible for a definition to be any more grounded in the world than that, that is the purpose of definitions (unlike your attempt at a definition, which attempts to reduce the degree to which we are able to distinguish phenomena from one another). Your claim makes no sense whatsoever. If you object to libertarianism, object on actual grounds instead of wordplay please.

If you're intellectually honest (I don't predict you are, but just in case), you badly need to read the following, to get some idea of what the actual purpose of having a word is:

http://lesswrong.com...

Contrary to your (TOU violating, but that's another matter) accusations, I am quite intellectually honest.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 12:05:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 9:04:40 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

It's more that I liked the idea behind his post. Harm isn't a linear concept,
I don't even know what this means. A linear concept? Who is claiming it is linearly proportional to what?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 12:09:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 11:23:19 PM, Kanti wrote:
Where does the Constitution enumerate that as among the government's powers?

Commerce Clause. Taxing and Spending Clause.
I already told you it's illegal to sell insurance interstate (The only "commerce clause" is the INTERSTATE commerce clause.


Wait, you're saying it's not a violation of freedom of conscience to mandate people with a certain belief pay a tax?

So you're acknowledging it's a tax. I guess we can move past this compelling interest holding pattern.
Your reasoning is not sound, see above.


Okay. The state wants everyone to go around without a yamaka. But Jews can pay a 10,000 dollar tax instead. Not a violation of freedom of conscience, what's the problem?

First off your hypothetical is ridiculous.
I also view Obamacare as ridiculous. That didn't stop Obamacare, why should it stop my hypothetical?
Reducing things to the ridiculous, btw, is one of the best tools available for analyzing the logical structure of an argument and whether one is applying it consistently.


But to your flimsy point Healthcare is not religious in nature
Religious folk seem to disagree with you. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a religion that doesn't have an opinion about the healthcare decisions of its adherents. They, not you, are empowered to determine what their religion is.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.