And that precise argument (of ignorance) can also be used to show that kids have no malicious intent. Let's be real here: the rules schools create have nothing to do with the safety of the students at all: they are merely rules created by control freaks. Boys were bringing knives and rifles to classes for more than 100 years without incident. Why is it that all of a sudden this is "intolerable" and "unsafe"? Good grief, if they want to be concerned with the safety of the students, why do they let any of them drive to school!?!

"But no level of government, including states, should be intervening in marriage."

Spot on.

The only reason government claims a "compelling interest" is so they can collect taxes on the inheritance - which in my opinion is immoral. Get rid of personal/corporate income taxes and the point becomes moot.

What is an unjust law? In the absence of objective standards, anyone's claims of conscience become superior to the law.

Even granted the action of objective standards, how do you parse anyone's claim to conscience? See the discussion on Rand Fans who steal from the public library. Even in the most strictly limited government, there will be some public property - the courts and the legislature, even if there is no executive. My conscience tells me to set up housekeeping in the commons and read Atlas Shrugged to everyone every day. What are you going to do?

If your conscience tells you to disobey an unjust law, you still must accept the consequences of your choice. You do not get away with a crime.

You did not read Prof. Tara Smith's article. She addresses that explicitly and in full. You are arguing against a straw man. Read the article and speak to that.

And what if your religion requires human sacrifice?

Marriage is about property rights. If you read the text on a stock certificate, depending on the state in which the corporation is licensed, you will see that the language for shared ownership comes directly from real estate. They say "jointly or severally" or "tenants in common" or "joint tenants with rights of survivorship" and so on. Again, I stress, that is for ownership of common stock in a corporation. And, of course, for land, which is the foundation of ownership concepts in our society.

Marriage defines inheritance.

And it determines who can speak for whom with power of attorney implicit in the laws, not otherwise specified.

In order to define objective property rights, the government has a compelling interest in marriage.

Anticipating your objections, I agree that there are other ways to achieve all of those by specific contracts. But that is not how things are now. Of course as "radicals for capitalism" Objectivists advocate a complete restructuring of society. But all of that is probably best addressed in a separate discussion or two.

Even the generality of the tax does not supply a simple answer to the question of 'who pays the tax'. Every tax is a distortion. If prices can't be raised by the amount of the tax or some portion of it, the business takes the loss -- if it continues in business at all. Costs are not equal between businesses. If the tax distortion is serious enough, as it sucks the otherwise normal increases in consumer well-being, efficiency of production, and the otherwise normal price decreases out of the economy, it could cause price increases more than the original tax, and at lower volume than would have otherwise been. The effects of these distortions cannot be easily predicted with all the feedback influences throughout the economy and the differences between businesses, subsequent investment choices, and consumer preferences, substitutions, going without, etc. Now add up all the taxes and regulations, with the differences between jurisdictions, consumers, investors and businesses, and the progressive increase of government, and you have a real mess of distortions and injustices in a cancerous process whose economic results throughout the economy no one can predict except to say "down". How much of a tax increase may be passed on to a price increase by whom is only one small part of it. It's a lot more complex and larger in scope than someone looking at his "cost accounting" books and unilaterally deciding to "pass on the tax as a price increase".

Of course companies pay attention to taxes when setting prices -- and a lot more. But costs cannot be arbitrarily added to a price. Costs put a lower limit on prices, and when they are added to price they have other bad consequences, which in turn influences, with or without price increases, who can stay in business in an economy at what level, especially as tax increases sucking money out of the economy further reduce the amount of money that individuals have to spend for their relative priorities, whether consumption or investment. This is an issue of economics analysis, not just "cost accounting" followed by rote price increases. The question of "who really pays a tax" is a complicated one that depends on many factors and feedback influences throughout the economy. The taxes are paid by everyone, but not equally and not necessarily as a direct consumer price, as the distortions propagate through the business, the industry and the economy.

Exemption from the law for 'conscience' as a matter of principle is anarchy on principle.

Religious dogma involving carrying knives was one of the examples in the article.

And "of no value whatsoever", though all too common at universities. He sounds like one of the snotty pseudo-intellectuals at the parties where Francisco easily tore them apart.

Some of them also "under water"! But no one has a "right" to the "same access" as anyone else. Access must be provided by someone, and so do extraordinary measures.

It is not a matter of a "very simple to what end does this law point". She gave the standard that all laws must be for the protection of the rights of the individual and as such apply to everyone, not a case by case for each law citing the particular law's purpose without regard to the standard -- and then deciding ad hoc from there for different kinds of people, allowing some to plead exemptions for their own particular beliefs. The universal applicability of law is based on the principle of what law is for at all -- the protection of the rights of all individuals, which she explained. She did not adopt 'universality of application' as a floating abstraction out of nowhere. Exemptions violate some people's rights for the benefits of those demanding the expemptions. If the proposed law does not protect everyone's rights to begin with, then it shouldn't be a law at all and never get to the point requiring applying it to everyone. Preventing bad law is not a matter of religion and not an "exemption".

She did not gloss over the concept of unjust laws. She emphasized the necessity of government established to protect the rights of the individual. If a law is wrong then it is wrong regardless of religion. But even though she said that and referred back to it several times, a weakness of the article was its style of academic rationalism that did not ground all arguments in reality. She gave many examples pertaining to laws that are not remotely valid under her own premises.

Applying laws unequally for religion is a violation of the entire Constitution and its reason for existing.

Laws granting privileges to religion violate the prohibition on supporting religion. The other side of preventing supporting religion was to prevent laws specifically against religion, not to provide exemptions of laws that apply to everyone. There is no rational excuse for that and is not what was meant by prohibiting freedom of religion. Religion is not an excuse to be exempt from law by claiming religion says so.

The court did not assert a right to control marriage. It invoked the 14th amendment protection of equal treatment under the law, including state law. But no level of government, including states, should be intervening in marriage. One reason they have is its importance to the application of other laws, particularly income taxes. They pile controls on controls.

I am old enough to remember the separate "Whites only" and "colored" signs at water fountains in our courthouse when I was just a small kid back home. Around 56-57 if I recall correctly.

I remember it so clearly because of how shocked I was after Dad explained it to me. I played with the kids in our well mixed rural area and drank from their faucets as often as they drank from ours and nobody thought a thing about it. I just wasn't raised to see color or race and could not believe that anybody did.

Thanks again Mike. I look forward to being around more now.

Be well my friend.

Excellent points Stargeezer. Obviously you have done very well, and you do have every right to have the same access to anywhere as anyone else. The system often forgets and ignores it's verterans, giving only lip service to them. I did see one guy who said after the latest VA scandal they ought to fire the lot and just allow vets to run it, which may be the right way to go. Like every major business, the cheap way if often the only way. I hate to think of what a less capable person has to endure in a similar situation as yours.I served 20 years in submarines and got out when I could, as it was turning into a political sinkhole and not worth the trouble anymore. Then I found out big corporations are just the same.....

If you are referring to me as a parasite we really are done. You seem to think that being an objectivist is being a asshole, you've got things all wrong. It's not being a patsy for bullies who kick old ladies because off a sidewalk because they were walking too slow either. It's not about operating retail business where you make your customers pass a physical fitness test in order to buy from you. I figure that if you want my money you'll make certain I can get through your doors.

If you manage to somehow grow old enough to see how absolutely how foolish your views are I hope you are not in need of the things so many of us are required to use, just to survive. Yes, there are countries that have nothing like the ADA, mostly they 3rd world holes where Hobbesian rule and everybody who has any power could care less about the people they crush in order to maintain their power. If you know anything about Atlas Shrugged, you can find their like in charge of the government consumed with hate against those who can make and do things.

Oh, those wheelchairs that can climb steps are $35,000 to $50,000 and since they are considered experimental, there''s no financial help from insurance to pay for one, the VA will not issue one, it's a cash deal and then there are big limits on the size and shapes of stairs they climb. Three years ago I got to take one for a ride, it took 25 minutes to climb 12 steps. Coming down steps requires you to back down the steps, you backing backwards down steps by rocking the chair back and forth by shifting your weight. And not worth risking my life on more than once.

They are not ready for prime time.

One last point before I quit this, I drive two specially adapted vehicles these days. One is a new Chrysler town and country that cost $33K to buy and $38k to adapt the other is a Dodge Ram 3500 Dully diesel powered truck that cost $65k to buy and I spent another $40K to modify it to be able to drive it myself. No governmental help, no insurance paid for it. I also live on a 146 acre estate with a modest 3800sf home, a 25 acre lake, 600 yd rifle range. As I said, I have been very successful in business. If I'm a parasite, I guess being a parasite has it's perks.

You say "amenities feels good" like the wheelchair I sit in is optional? It's comfortable, or so I'm told. I've not been able to feel my legs, butt or lower waist since 1985 when I fell off the top of a missile launcher I was working on, while on active duty in Germany. Amenities??? Like the little perk of only being able to urinate with a catheter? Or do you mean how my shoes last a long time since I don't actually walk on them?

Here's how I see it, I spent 16 years of protecting everybody back home, did so of my own free will and would do so again. I became paralyzed and lost the use of my legs as a direct result of that service. Being able to access sidewalks, street signal light switches and the courthouse, and other buildings in order that any grievances I may have may be addressed is not too much to expect.And I do believe you'll find that right as a citizen in the constitution, unless this current generation has given that up too.

I know but would never trust the government not to keep the information and would rather pay my part for road maintenance via gas taxes versus tolls.

Either way you would pay and the gas tax maintains more of an illusion of privacy.

Europe has had toll transponders that don't keep detailed individual records for years. Those countries built the systems that way because they learned the hard way what people like the Stasi could do with the data once they had it.

The Constitution does not promise equal access to anything except the law's protection. (And does not authorize federal money to be spent on schools, welfare, or most of the other stuff it now is. All that is the result of New Deal precedents that must be overturned.)

And I have seen wheelchairs capable of climbing stairs. Handing out those would have been far cheaper than what has already been spent to make buildings compatible with ADA.

While having amenities feels nice, ADA is symptomatic of what makes it outrageously more expensive to do business in the US than in many other parts of the world -- the notion that just because some service is nice, everyone in business should be forced to provide it to the public as a condition of staying in business. Once that bad principle gets admitted into government, we all get nibbled to death by parasites.

Thanks for the thoughtful and thought-provoking reply. I believe that cultural changes often preview the law. Jackie Robinson played for the Brooklyn Dodgers ahead of Brown v. Board; and I think that the change in baseball was the more important because of what it said about the American psyche. On the other hand, it still took federal troops and forced busing to integrate schools 10 and even 15 years after the law supposedly forbade segregation.

I think that the ADA just recognized an undeniable fact.

Thanks, also, for the insights into the low cost of conformance to the ADA.

Hi Mike! Good to hear from you again. Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable, as most of us have found here.

I've restarted this post a couple times in a effort to remove myself from the equation, it's almost a impossible task. If we go back to 1987 when I first became aware of a group of folks trying to bring the ADA into existence, I can tell you that our world was a far different place for us in need of such accommodations.

I had just visited a local junior college where I had hoped to take a few classes. Sadly, I was not going to be able to attend because the only building on the entire campus that had curb-cuts, ramp for access into the building, or even a partially accessible bathroom was the admin building. That stuff was there because they had a couple people working there in power scooters. The only accessible parking was also at the admin building. Some of the classroom buildings were up to 2 miles apart but the only place I could park my van, open the lift and have enough room to depart the lift, was at the admin building.

The notion of "reasonable accommodation" was not even a concept. One person even informed me that they just didn't have students in wheelchairs. To whit I replied that I wondered if it was because nobody using a wheelchair could get into the classrooms (which were all two story buildings with no elevators). Please allow me to say that I found such lack astonishing. Had spent a year and a half at Walter Reed and was used to far better accommodations.

I had spent some time learning how most people saw a person in a wheelchair as disabled, handicapped or worse yet patronized me by asking my wife what it was I'd like for my order at a restaurant. Some might claim, of course You are disabled, you can't walk! To those I say just give me access to the starting line, I'll do the rest, but I must have access.

We I started my real estate business later that year we started by what is now known as flipping houses, while keeping a few as rentals. Every home we rehabbed was done with the idea of universal access in mind and one of the reasons the homes resold quickly with a good profit was the universal design concepts we incorporated. We carefully examined our cost to make these changes and our determination was that it cost us about $300-500 dollars per home, which was reflected in the resale price. Not much on a $120-250k home.

A couple years later we moved away from rehabbing residential and into building strip malls which was much more profitable, if not as personally as satisfying. I've always loved building places for people and children to live their whole lives.

For businesses operating a retail trade the cost to new construction much less with the biggest cost being the floor space that needs to be dedicated handicap bathrooms. The lost square footage, the cost of grab bars and tall toilet still should be less expensive than the price of rehabbing residential homes as I was doing.

I've been privileged to speak at several dinners, forums and such like on the subject of building accessibility and the most basic point I try to make is that anybody can use a ramp, but only people who can walk can use steps. Anybody can use a elevator, but only those who can walk can use stairs.

I agree with you about cultural changes being the best to have handled access in the private sector, but the public sector was entrenched in the notion that they could and would not spend tax dollars on what most considered unnecessary items like curb-cuts and accessible parking.

I'll never forget the day that we asked a certain senator to sit in my vans driver seat while it was parked inside what was then accepted as an accessible parking spot next to his own car, both legally parked according to DC's parking laws as existed then. He was instructed how to operate the drivers seat to position it to transfer into my wheelchair. As he then pressed the button to open the side doors of the van and deploying the lift. The lift is about 4.5 feet long when extended, so as he sat in my chair he could clearly see that the lift would drop down across the roof of his car. He finally understood why we were demanding 8' access zone on the right side.

I could go on and on about this but the point is that in order to make the cultural change that we both agree needed to have been made the choices are to sit back and trust that mans unerring desire for doing the right thing (sure) they will to solve this social problem to fix itself OR as we were forced after years of begging businesses to just build a ramp so that we could just get into their stores to spend. our money. Sometimes the status quo is just too comfortable a place to be, we need a kick in the butt to make the societal change that was needed was the ADA, where it could be laid out as a pathway to equal accessibility, as promised in the constitution.

In the fifth grade, we boys would play mumbley peg with our pocket knives and have knife throwing contests, sticking them into the wooden fence surrounding.

"The question is whether any claim of "conscience" exempts you from the law."

Your "conscience" is not an excuse to hurt anyone.