Namaste Philosoraptor
You points regarding laws changing are understood, this is always a risk no matter what the government is. Hopefully we get the best government, we get what we deserve often.
(I am having some problems with a new cell phone when typing things into the reply field on this forum, I don’t have time to figure out why right now, excuse any odd paragraphs etc., I am not situated to respond properly, there will be typos as items roll off the phone screen and so on) …
In brief, obviously the risks you describe can happen, but typically not in the manner of how radicals do things. When radicals take over, they typically do not use any of the existing laws to addendum in some radical agenda, but simply ignore entirely the laws of the “old regime”, they pre-stage the approximate event of placing sweeping “new laws” on the people by first establishing un-elected bureaucratic “administrations” of regulation and then after the people become used to being toadies of such “administrations” they then sweep in with the “new laws” that entirely replace the old ones which allow un-elected bureaucratic “administrations” the ability to do anything the un-elected bureaucrats want to do without the vote or consent of the people or the King and his advisers.
The examples you give are real, but that is the consequences in part of what economists and legal scholars and authorities warned about in tax policy. In the old days, taxes were collected directly from the people at a given time or place using a single flat or scale, and not from the transaction of a sale of a product or service. But the people “vote” through silence, if they do not react to something it becomes defacto. Today, tax collection is made at the time of a transaction, that may be convenient but has consequences. I would prefer a returning or creating a flat tax paid once a year (literally, you take out your check book or setup a routing, and pay once or quarterly each year directly to the government a flat, or in some cases a flat scale based on profession, tax to the government rather than on sales – but that isn’t popular and probably isn’t going to happen very soon). We have the later and not what I would desire, but just because it is not what I would desire does not make the latter incorrect as far as legal perspective and logic. A tax collected by the government on the transaction makes the government a partner to every transaction of the business (and thus a partner to the business itself, just as private third-party vendors are a partner and legally in alliance with the company). So the “rules” which the government uses in relation to non-discrimination and civil alliances with the citizens now become the same rules in relation to the business. Government considers this tax collection too important to risk civil standing by the bad behaviors of its partners in private industry.
This is perfectly logical and authorized by government. I do not like it, but it is not “wrong”. The government will say in such a tax structure, that “you did not create this (e.g. the business)” without their help, it would not have been possible. Obama said this recently even. I do not like that, but the facts are, it is also true. It goes way beyond just the fact that the business could not even exist without the public roads built by the taxes of the citizens of the State.
So you are right in regards to dangers, but I do NOT think the current system as applied in such an anti-discrimination would predicate that a private religious institution must hire dalits to do pujas. There is no doubt, a situation could arise where a temple IS in fact told they are discriminating, but that would be the fault of the temple in almost all circumstance. For example, a temple opens, is a legit religious institution at first, but then they open a store front attached to the temple that is selling astrology readings en-mass at notable profit and really there are not many people coming to the temple. The temple may argue that the astrology readings are part of a religious act, or religious ceremony and so on. But it could be the case, that if this temple was not allowing dalits to come in and buy astrology readings in the adjunct, that the government could win a case in court that the temple is in fact running a business and is not a “non-profit” and thus taxes must be collected and the business is not allowed to discriminate. But if I owned the temple, I wouldn’t be so stupid to have such an astrology business adjunct to my temple.
So yes, in some cases it might happen. That is from stupidity.
What radicals do tomorrow, all I can do is scream at my television which my wife complains I do a lot of. But what radicals do, they will try to do no matter what the current law is.
Om Namah Sivaya
Other - In England they will soon be having a King. In England, private property is respected, though at risk, and citizens need to have the right to pass on what a father created, including private property, to the sons and so on. This is at risk, in the UK, in USA. In USA frankly it is less at risk. But this very principle is part of the concept of King. Soon there will be a King of England, and you will begin to see things return to normal because this King will be very popular.
Originally Posted by dogra
Bookmarks