This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
"If government passed a law requiring people to do irrational, hateful or wrong things, then it would be bad government; but a government forcing people to do the right thing - well, that's a progressive government, and that's the law." But what happens when people disagree? Are they allowed to follow their own consciences, so long as they don't commit fraud or impose force themselves? This is the question that's evaded, and raising the question usually gets you called a "Hater." Loving the principle of freedom of association is not hateful.
If you're prepared to use government force to require people to do something, you have to be prepared to rationally and morally justify the use of force.
"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason-as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no"right" to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: force#1 government#2 law#3 right#4 people#5
Post found in /r/Conservative, /r/Republican and /r/Anarcho_Capitalism.