| The government's attempt to protect people (excluding police and military) has often been more harmful than helpful. It is essential to have a stable rule of law, police enforcement, and a robust military to protect from outside forces. The government's attempts to protect people are oppressive when they require them to limit the liberties of, control or hinder self-governance. It is also harmful in any scenario where the government attempts to stop the discrimination of, decide for, or provide for an individual. |  |
 | Stalin, Hitler, and Mao killed millions ultimately because they thought their version of statism was the best way to protect their people from want, greed, and capitalists. They had a misguided vision of utopia in which you must oppress people in order for them to have the best life possible. While the United States does not have this level of "protection," any level of statism always causes oppression. Haley2024 recognizes the family unit is the smallest governmental system and is undermined by the government trying to protect or provide for families. |
| The individual should have the most power, followed by the family unit, followed by an extended family, followed by voluntary private organizations, whether business or not for profit. |  |
 | Communist and socialist governments try to provide for people. The government will tell the people where to work, what they may learn, how much they get, and when they may do things. This simply is not liberty, but it has been the norm for over ninety percent of the people over history. |
| Only when America was founded on liberty and had the will to defend it against outside forces, did standards of living dramatically improve. Most improvements were in the United States; however, other countries have followed suit to a certain degree, andAmerica's rising water helped others in more oppressed nations rise as well. When the government gives aid, families are weakened, organizations pull back, and society deteriorates. Many examples of this are unfortunate and revealing. In the first half of the 1900s, the African American family was strong. Two-parent families were the norm, and black children were encouraged to learn and achieve a good standard of education. |  |
 | The black family taught patriotism and respect to others. They had organizations that helped when the need grew more substantial than the family's abilities. Yes, racism and discrimination harmed the black family. It was entirely morally wrong and needed to end; however, ending discrimination did not cause the breakdown of the black family. The civil rights movement happened at the same time as the great society. Blacks at this time had a significantly lower income and thus was disproportionally “provided for” through the great society. This is a great side by side comparison of two groups that had significant differences in the percentage of their populations eligible to be “provided for.” |
| In fact, ENDA might even make it more difficult for gay individuals to get hired. The law would create many false positives of discrimination. These would be cases where the employer was not bigoted, but for some reason chose not to hire a gay person and was then legally penalized for it. The threat of legal trouble will make all employers a little less eager to supply jobs, making it more difficult for everyone to get hired. (Source: article on the right). |  |
 | When the government provides for someone, that individual no longer has the responsibility. This weakens the need for strong families and organizations. While people of all races suffered from family breakdown, they did so on proportions of those populations eligible to be ‘provided for.’ A closer look would show a high percentage of those African American families not ‘provided for’ still enjoying a strong family. |
| Protection against discrimination, whether by race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or a host of other protected classes have had adverse effects on society. Without a doubt, discrimination based on these things is immoral, but the government's intolerance of discrimination harms more than it helps. |  |
 | People in protected classes have a higher chance of causing the company legal problems even if discrimination is not intended. Companies legal department forces the company to make decisions based on race and gender, so they do not have legally problematic disparities from laws meant to stop decisions being made on race and gender. Many HR people see a lawsuit stapled to a protected person’s job application and will try to ovoid problems if possible. |
