Do companies have a right to discriminate?

[Grammatron]

Before I begin I would like to say I want to have a serious discussion on the rights of companies, flame war starters need not apply.


I was reading listening to a radio -- though you could read about the same topic in this article (http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_340133905.html) -- and they were talking about Abercrombie & Fitch and how it is accused of hiring white people to sell the merchandize. This got me thinking; shouldn't the company be allowed to hire all white/black/yellow/pink people if they want to? The logic of economics would dictate that they would lose out on good employees and customers if they adapt the policy which would make them stupid, but do they have a right to be "stupid"? I would argue that yes they do because it's their money. What do you think about it?

[ssibal]

Companies should be able to hire or not hire whomever they want as long as they are not funded with tax dollars in any way.

[corplinx]

Its a touchy subject, I'll quote Dr. Walter E. Williams:

I value freedom of association. An important part of the right of association is the right not to associate for a good reason, bad reason or no reason at all. That's not to say that I don't find some forms of association offensive. But the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows others to associate in ways he deems desirable. The true test of his commitment comes when he is willing to allow others to associate in ways he deems offensive.

One might be tempted to think that if owners were free to reject customers by race segregation would be widespread. But that's nonsense because there's a difference between what people can do and what they'll find in their interests to do. Think about it. During the United States' Jim Crow era and South Africa's apartheid era, there was an elaborate legal structure mandating and enforcing racial segregation. Whenever you see a law on the books, your best guess is that the law is on the books because not everyone left to their own devices would behave according to the specifications of the law. After all why would there be a need for a law saying bars or theaters cannot admit blacks if no white bar or theater owner would admit blacks in the first place?



He makes some good points. Of course, he is an academic and is subject to ivory tower syndrome just like leftist academics.

the article i quoted from (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/thinking.html)

[Khalid01]

I agree with you, Grammatron. (and I usually don't) This is one case when I find the slogan, "the market will take care of it," to bear truth. As long as the customers know that they may be purchasing from a retailer that discriminates in hiring employees, then they can decide whether to perpetuate that; and risk appearing as fascists or some such. It's much analogous to what can be done regarding child labour, one (easy) solution is information and the will of the consumers to stop supporting it. It may not be the only solution, of course, but it would be the easiest and cleanest, in terms of economics and international relations.

Somehow, I even support general permittance of discrimination, even though it can get out of hand, and I myself am not racist; it is indeed the company's money and right. If they're foolish enough to refuse a good employee, and want to risk their reputation, then that's their own responsibility. The hiring of an employee is between the employee and the employer (mostly), and I think the government should refrain from infringing on the rights of stupid companies when it comes down to two individual entities. It's very unfortunate when discrimination happens based on race, sex, or any arbitrary, non-qualifying trait; it's undoubtedly very stupid, but like most other objectively stupid things in society, it should be permissable.

The only two cases that I would significantly encourage anti-discrimination laws are when: the company is in a city, county, or state that is on average highly discriminatory; and/or the company is a government subsidy, in which case, discrimination is profoundly impermissable, and should halt the practice, or lose its government support. The latter instance makes for an interesting debate topic in regards to politicians, given when they might have supported a discriminatory subsidy. :D

[Glory]

Originally posted by corplinx
Its a touchy subject, I'll quote Dr. Walter E. Williams:



He makes some good points. Of course, he is an academic and is subject to ivory tower syndrome just like leftist academics.

the article i quoted from (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/thinking.html)

The problem was not a law requiring segregation. The problem is a policy that may not be strictly prohibited by law. Segregation was not imposed by the legislature. It was a way of life that the Supreme Court finally put an end to.

Glory

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Glory


The problem was not a law requiring segregation.

You may want to google for the phrase Jim Crow (http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm)

As you can see, segregation was legislated.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
The logic of economics would dictate that they would lose out on good employees and customers if they adapt the policy which would make them stupid, but do they have a right to be "stupid"? I would argue that yes they do because it's their money. What do you think about it?Well, the logic of economics would dictate that if they discriminate against a minority group that is only a few percent of the population, that they will lose only a few percent of good employees, and only a few percent of the customers and only be a few percent stupid. But as a consequence, the entire minority group suffers from the discrimination. If other companies in the area choose to be that few percent stupid as well, then you end up with a minority group that is needlessly unemployed.

Your analysis would work fine when the groups in the population are about equal in size and in bargaining power. But that's hardly ever true, now is it?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Well, the logic of economics would dictate that if they discriminate against a minority group that is only a few percent of the population, that they will lose only a few percent of good employees, and only a few percent of the customers and only be a few percent stupid. But as a consequence, the entire minority group suffers from the discrimination. If other companies in the area choose to be that few percent stupid as well, then you end up with a minority group that is needlessly unemployed.

Your analysis would work fine when the groups in the population are about equal in size and in bargaining power. But that's hardly ever true, now is it?

You would be correct if the employer was a monopoly or accounted for the majority of employment, the example company I provided is neither. There for my point remains a valid one; they would be hurting themselves by limited their options and customer base. Also, I for one would not shop there and so wouldn't many people I know. It's a lose/lose situation in the long run unless they want to remain a tiny business.

[Earthborn]

Okay, so how many people will stop shopping there? How many people will start to shop there more often because they support the discriminatory policy? And how would it change if they lower their prices a few percent? And how many companies will start to do the same if they learn that they can get away with it?

Yes, they will probably lose something. But they probably figured that out themselves and think it is worth it.

[Glory]

Originally posted by corplinx


You may want to google for the phrase Jim Crow (http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm)

As you can see, segregation was legislated.

I never said it wasn't. Once the Jim Crowe laws were repealed, though, discrimination didn't go away, did it? People just went on doing things as they always had done. It was no longer illegal to hire a black man. It also wasn't illegal to refuse to hire any black men. Hence, the problem with Dr. Williams' argument.

Glory

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Okay, so how many people will stop shopping there? How many people will start to shop there more often because they support the discriminatory policy? And how would it change if they lower their prices a few percent? And how many companies will start to do the same if they learn that they can get away with it?

Yes, they will probably lose something. But they probably figured that out themselves and think it is worth it.

Not many? No one wants to handicap themselves by limited their labor pool and if they do then let them be stupid.

Tell me, should the government control to make sure that the people you hire to wash your car, clean your house, repair your vehicle are diverse and that you are not discriminating?

[Otther]

What about the other companies? They would be able to employ the minority at lower costs. Combining that with how the minority will probably only buy from a non-discriminatory company... the minority's could easily be strong enough to give one company the edge over another.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Khalid01
I agree with you, Grammatron. (and I usually don't) This is one case when I find the slogan, "the market will take care of it," to bear truth. As long as the customers know that they may be purchasing from a retailer that discriminates in hiring employees, then they can decide whether to perpetuate that; and risk appearing as fascists or some such. It's much analogous to what can be done regarding child labour, one (easy) solution is information and the will of the consumers to stop supporting it. It may not be the only solution, of course, but it would be the easiest and cleanest, in terms of economics and international relations.


How would a customer know discriminatory practices were in place? Should the business be forced to put a statement at the front of the store, on its letterheads etc. stating its discrimination?

The same with "child labour" - how do you know if the keyboard you are typing on was not made by "child labour" or not and also do you have a problem with child labour?

Originally posted by Khalid01
...snip...

The only two cases that I would significantly encourage anti-discrimination laws are when: the company is in a city, county, or state that is on average highly discriminatory; and/or the company is a government subsidy, in which case, discrimination is profoundly impermissable, and should halt the practice, or lose its government support. The latter instance makes for an interesting debate topic in regards to politicians, given when they might have supported a discriminatory subsidy. :D

Why is the assumption always that the government be "hamstrung" with regulations that the private sector isn't? No wonder we tend to complain that governments overspend compared to the private sector!

And how would you measure an ‘average level of discrimination' in an area? After all you can't be proposing to force private companies to tell you their business are you? And why under special circumstances if you believe the "market should decide" do you think the 'the market shouldn't decide’?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Otther
What about the other companies? They would be able to employ the minority at lower costs. Combining that with how the minority will probably only buy from a non-discriminatory company... the minority's could easily be strong enough to give one company the edge over another.

Exactly (except for minorities getting paid less bit), so in the long run it will all balance out as companies who discriminate will lose business and might even go out of business. Most places will realize the benefits of not limited their employment pool and thus will strive.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Darat


<snip>

And how would you measure an ‘average level of discrimination' in an area? After all you can't be proposing to force private companies to tell you their business are you? And why under special circumstances if you believe the "market should decide" do you think the 'the market shouldn't decide’?

I can ask you the opposite, what's the correct level of diversity that should exist at the company?

[Jon_in_london]

There is obviously a degree of hypocrisy with the way things are at the moment. There are laws making discrimination illegal in the workplace. However, what about those roles where the appearence and gender of the employee are important. For instance, I dont think 55 year old male would get a job as a waiter in a Hooters bar. But is this not discrimination based on age and gender?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
No one wants to handicap themselves by limited their labor pool and if they do then let them be stupid.No one? Are you absolutely sure of that? I remember several situations in history when horribe discrimination, even genocide started when shopkeepers started excluding certain population groups from their stores, as clients or employees. Are you saying that those didn't happen?I can ask you the opposite, what's the correct level of diversity that should exist at the company?I think the level of diversity should be irrelevant (no quotas). What is relevant is how accessible the economy is to people in minority groups. The things are not necessarily the same! (http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/objectify.txt)

If someone wants to apply for a job, they should not be judged on things that are irrelevant to the job. Not just because the employer wants to.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Exactly (except for minorities getting paid less bit), so in the long run it will all balance out as companies who discriminate will lose business and might even go out of business.In the case of a minority group that consists only a few percent or less of the population, how long do you allow 'the long run' to last? Decades? Centuries?

[Michael Redman]

Can a company descriminate on the basis of race? No. Should they be allowed to? That's a different question. (Witht the same answer, in my opinion.)

The argument that the market will take care of itself is the same as the libertarian argument that, left to itself, the market would prevent companies from polluting. You may be able to construct a nicely worded argument, but our real world experience proves the theory false in practice.

The theory simply ignores some fundamantal human characteristics which cause us to behave differently than we would in the idealized model. Humans do not always act in what is objectively their best interest, but the free-market-solves-all-social-problems theory relies on them doing so.

Free market: Good for creating wealth. Bad for creating social policy.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Can a company descriminate on the basis of race? No. Should they be allowed to? That's a different question. (Witht the same answer, in my opinion.)

The argument that the market will take care of itself is the same as the libertarian argument that, left to itself, the market would prevent companies from polluting. You may be able to construct a nicely worded argument, but our real world experience proves the theory false in practice.

The theory simply ignores some fundamantal human characteristics which cause us to behave differently than we would in the idealized model. Humans do not always act in what is objectively their best interest, but the free-market-solves-all-social-problems theory relies on them doing so.

Free market: Good for creating wealth. Bad for creating social policy.

The assumption being that someone "knows" what is right? And who are these omnisient entities? If you reject the notion that market forces (ie. the population at large) will correct the problem, then you are implying that there is a "right" answer beyond the ken of the hoi poli. And how do you know that it is "right" anyway? It feels good? No one suffers? Is discrimination wrong? Why? Is it ever justifiable? If it is justifiable in some cases then discrimination is not, ipso facto, wrong. So who determins that it is "wrong" in this case?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I can ask you the opposite, what's the correct level of diversity that should exist at the company?

I was asking you a question following on from your claim I've not stated that I belive there should or should not be a level of discrimination - that's your claim.

Do you have an answer?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ed


The assumption being that someone "knows" what is right? And who are these omnisient entities?



Well you of course :)

Originally posted by Ed

If you reject the notion that market forces (ie. the population at large) will correct the problem, then you are implying that there is a "right" answer beyond the ken of the hoi poli. And how do you know that it is "right" anyway? It feels good? No one suffers? Is discrimination wrong? Why? Is it ever justifiable? If it is justifiable in some cases then discrimination is not, ipso facto, wrong. So who determins that it is "wrong" in this case?

Aren't you begging the question here that "market forces" are "omniscient" and deliver a "right" answer.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Ed
So who determins that it is "wrong" in this case?That's easy: the government. :p

The same government that determines that markets should be free, the same government that determines that property rights exist and should be protected.

So not only can the government decree that markets are free, it can also decree that markets should be accessible to everyone.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Glory


I never said it wasn't. Once the Jim Crowe laws were repealed, though, discrimination didn't go away, did it? People just went on doing things as they always had done. It was no longer illegal to hire a black man. It also wasn't illegal to refuse to hire any black men. Hence, the problem with Dr. Williams' argument.

Glory

Discriminitian is still around. Right now a business owner has to let me come into his store even if he doesn't like me because of my skin color. He may be rude, may hassle me, and may give me bad service.

At least if he is allowed to discriminate openly with a racial access policy of his choosing, then that bias is known and people who don't agree with such discrimination can avoid his store.

Was there still discrimination after Jim Crow? Of course, it was the status quo. Right now, the status quo is the exact opposite.

[Glory]

Originally posted by corplinx


Discriminitian is still around. Right now a business owner has to let me come into his store even if he doesn't like me because of my skin color. He may be rude, may hassle me, and may give me bad service.

At least if he is allowed to discriminate openly with a racial access policy of his choosing, then that bias is known and people who don't agree with such discrimination can avoid his store.

Was there still discrimination after Jim Crow? Of course, it was the status quo. Right now, the status quo is the exact opposite.

Huh? :confused:

This seems contradictory. The status quo is exactly opposite to what it was when discrfimination was law and we still have discrimination?

Further more, you need to address the plight of people who have run into discriminatory hiring practices. Telling them to work elsewhere is not reasonable. Sometimes it is industry leaders who are discriminating. If time magazine stopped employing minority writers, as a matter of course, thousands of writers have lost what may be their best opportunity for success. Time magazine doesn't have the right to do that to them. They do not have the right to pick and choose who gets a carreer in magazine journalism based on racism or sexism or agism. Call them a victim of their own success if you like. With success comes responsibility to the public.

Glory

[Richard G]

There are Federal laws (U.S.) that prevent hiring discrimination. What is not protected are the rights of customers. You can be denied service, or even be thrown off a buisness premises for something as simple as being ugly.

I don't quite think this is right.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Glory


Huh? :confused:

This seems contradictory. The status quo is exactly opposite to what it was when discrfimination was law and we still have discrimination?

Further more, you need to address the plight of people who have run into discriminatory hiring practices. Telling them to work elsewhere is not reasonable.


Its not contradictory at all, do you see whites only water fountains?

On your second point, I would refer your again to the whole point of freedom. You aren't really free if you agree to have your freedom compromised because you find the expression of freedom offensive. The right to hire whom you choose is such a freedom.

The only employer for whom it should be illegal to discriminate is the government itself.

[Larspeart]

I agree with the idea that a private company under private (or even public) ownershp should be allowed to hire or not hire whatever way they choose. The market itself will dictate how well it will work in the end, and yes, the employeer stands a good chance turning down and not hiring some fine employees.

Earthborn made a comment earlier that a company would lose a few percent of good employees, and a few percent of it's business by discriminating. I think the numbers of lost customers would be much higher. Earthborn is insinuating that ONLY those of whatever group is being discriminated will not buy from them, when I think that far more then that would 'boycott' the company. Look at how easy and fast it is for a cause to draw up a multi-racial, multi-faceted 'movement' these days. A few posts on a few internet sites, some media time, and 'boom', a large-scale boycott against the racist company. Earth's view is too narrow and closed-minded to be accurate.

In the end, even if said company DID succede, I feel that the compnay had every right to do what it did. it is PRIVATE, and not government. The companies views and attitudes have nothing to do with the government under which it is based. As long as it isn't hiring little kids, or torturing people (which break dozens of human rights accords, which WOULD be illegal), it should be free to run it however it wants.

Example. A vietnam POW gets set free after 10 years in a tigercage. He comes home, and his friends and family, happy that he is back, give him some money to start a business. He opens up a relatively normal, non-political agenda Tool and Die plant in his hometown. He pays fair wages, offers benefits, and takes care of his employees.

But. . . because of his history, he doesn't trust the Vietnamese or want them near him. The accent, the language, etc literally frighten him to this day, and he still wakes up in cold sweats from memories of torture by them. He says, clearly on his applications 'No Vietnamese will be considered'.

This could apply to a Jewish baker who was a holocaust survivor not wanting to hire Germans or German-Americans.

is that wrong? Is that understandable? it is HIS business, afterall. Why should he feel anxiety and fear at HIS own business?

[Tmy]

You can discriminate IF you have a good reason. Like if you have an authentic italian resutrant, you can hire an italian wait staff. Hoots hires endowed women.

BUT I dont think you should have the right to discrimiante for no reason. A business in itself is either a govt created entity or a place that benefits from a number of commerce laws. If you wanna play the commerece game you gotta play by the rules.

Just like the safety rules. Should we let companies be reckless with safety because market forces MAY set them right down the road.. What happens to those hurt in the meantime, and the damage it does to soceity.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy

BUT I dont think you should have the right to discrimiante for no reason.

Its irrelevant whether or not _you_ think that a business discriminates for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason. The reason is none of your business.

If a business can only discriminate in ways that _you_ think are acceptable, then the freedom of the business owner is compromised by your subjectivity.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy

Just like the safety rules. Should we let companies be reckless with safety because market forces MAY set them right down the road.. What happens to those hurt in the meantime, and the damage it does to soceity.

Well, that arguement was a good reason for affirmative action and forced desegregation of the private sector.

We have had the safeties in place for many years and maybe its time to remove them.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Otther
What about the other companies? They would be able to employ the minority at lower costs. Combining that with how the minority will probably only buy from a non-discriminatory company... the minority's could easily be strong enough to give one company the edge over another.

Listen to what you are saying. "They would be able to employ the minority at lower costs."

[Luke T.]

I agree that a company should be allowed to choose who they hire and who they sell to. But things get sticky when you think about what could happen.

Suppose the company in question is a utility. Electric power. And they decide they don't want to sell their electricity to blacks. Now that would have a very real impact on quality of life and upon the black community's ability to compete with whites. How would they be able to become computer literate, for example.

How many whites who are opposed to racism are going to choose to do without electricity, too?

You usually only have one choice of utility company. Sure, most of them are probably subsidized by the government, but it may not always be that way. And there are probably other examples of vital, or highly desirable, services/products for which there is only one supplier, and no government funds involved.

Cable TV?

So now what do we do? Extend the rule to "those companies that require a federal license to operate?" That can get messy, too. The Feds would soon find ways to punish discriminatory companies by making all companies in that industry have to get a federal license.

[Glory]

Originally posted by corplinx


Its not contradictory at all, do you see whites only water fountains?

It is contradictory. You siad that things were the same and then said they were different.

As for segregated water fountains, you are affirming the consequent. The absence of whites only water fountains does not indicate the absence of discrimination.

On your second point, I would refer your again to the whole point of freedom. You aren't really free if you agree to have your freedom compromised because you find the expression of freedom offensive. The right to hire whom you choose is such a freedom.

Your freedom does not trump my freedom. I am free to make my living. You are not free to stop me from doing so because of my race or gender or age, etc... Employers are not free to create a lower class out of minorities, to interfere with someone else's freedom. If they don't want the responsibility of following the law, they shouldn't seek to be employers.

Glory

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Suppose the company in question is a utility. Electric power. And they decide they don't want to sell their electricity to blacks.

I'd say they would save a ton of money and have cheaper energy costs, ouch!

Serioulsy, MLGW near spends a lot of money chasing bills for the black demographic. It has gotten so bad that they even send people tips like "if you cant pay your bill and you have cable tv, you need to cancel cable tv".

Now, the problem isn't that the people are black. The problem is that they are bad with money and earn low wages. The fact that they are largely black is coincidental.

Now, does any of that matter? No. The power company is a "natural monopoly" and the state obviously has a state interest in ensuring there is equal access.

Now, lets assume the phone company discriminates. In my area, BellSouth just wont talk to some black people. After repeated disconnects, BellSouth just will not connect their phones anymore. Statistically these people are mostly black. So, is BellSouth discriminating? Of course, it is discriminitating against people who don't pay their friggin bill.

However, low income earners have a wide range of options of prepaid home and cellular phone service. Yes, sometimes it is more costly to the consumer but the companies that run the prepaid services run a profit from this demographic unlike BellSouth.

So what if a Bell level telco decided to discriminate? Big whoop. The discriminated consumer can switch to local phone service by other companies MCI/Sprint or smaller regional competitors. Non-discriminated consumers can write letters, carry signs outside the door, and switch their service to try to reverse the discrimination.

With a natural monopoly there is no such recourse. And since it is a monopoly there is a compelling state interest in keeping its doors open to all.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Larspeart
I think the numbers of lost customers would be much higher. Earthborn is insinuating that ONLY those of whatever group is being discriminated will not buy from them, when I think that far more then that would 'boycott' the company.Oh, I am sure that there will be others principled enough not to buy there. How many of them will there be? How many will be left if this company lowers prices a few percent to lure them back? Look at how easy and fast it is for a cause to draw up a multi-racial, multi-faceted 'movement' these days. A few posts on a few internet sites, some media time, and 'boom', a large-scale boycott against the racist company.Care to point to a boycott that actually had a large impact on company policy? I can't think of even a single example.As long as it isn't hiring little kids, or torturing people (which break dozens of human rights accords, which WOULD be illegal), it should be free to run it however it wants.Funny, there are companies that hire little kids, and in some of them people are being tortured or otherwise mistreated. And there are principled people boycotting those companies. Does it really help?

And why even have those human rights accords if the free market makes sure companies aren't misbehaving? Surely no company wants to be seen as a big bully and face all those boycotts?

BTW: Discriminating people also breaks dozens of human rights accords and is illegal! (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)But. . . because of his history, he doesn't trust the Vietnamese or want them near him.Perhaps if he can't handle dealing with people he is likely to meet everyday, he should be seeking treatment for that. It is his problem, and does not give him the right to discriminate against others.This could apply to a Jewish baker who was a holocaust survivor not wanting to hire Germans or German-Americans.Would you feel the same about a nazi german putting a 'Juden Sind Unerwuenscht' sign in his shop window?

"Is that wrong? Is that understandable? It is HIS business, afterall. Why should he feel anxiety and fear at HIS own business?"

The free market will take care of that right? He will lose business to Jews, people will boycott him for discrimination and everybody will live happily ever after, right?

... Right ... :rolleyes:

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by corplinx

Now, the problem isn't that the people are black. The problem is that they are bad with money and earn low wages.

But what if they are earning low wages because they are black? This is where the other facet of this topic comes in.

edited to add: As for "bad with money," this recalls to mind something I did in 1991. I had been teaching as a volunteer literacy tutor for quite some time when it occurred to me that teaching an adult to read for the first time in their lives was not enough. If they didn't know how to read, then it followed they didn't know how to balance a checkbook. So I petitioned the city of Meridian, Mississippi to start what I called a "Life Skills" class, which they enthusiastically did. For all I know, that class is still going.

[Glory]

Originally posted by corplinx


I'd say they would save a ton of money and have cheaper energy costs, ouch!

Serioulsy, MLGW near spends a lot of money chasing bills for the black demographic. It has gotten so bad that they even send people tips like "if you cant pay your bill and you have cable tv, you need to cancel cable tv".

Now, the problem isn't that the people are black. The problem is that they are bad with money and earn low wages. The fact that they are largely black is coincidental.

Now, does any of that matter? No. The power company is a "natural monopoly" and the state obviously has a state interest in ensuring there is equal access.

Now, lets assume the phone company discriminates. In my area, BellSouth just wont talk to some black people. After repeated disconnects, BellSouth just will not connect their phones anymore. Statistically these people are mostly black. So, is BellSouth discriminating? Of course, it is discriminitating against people who don't pay their friggin bill.

However, low income earners have a wide range of options of prepaid home and cellular phone service. Yes, sometimes it is more costly to the consumer but the companies that run the prepaid services run a profit from this demographic unlike BellSouth.

So what if a Bell level telco decided to discriminate? Big whoop. The discriminated consumer can switch to local phone service by other companies MCI/Sprint or smaller regional competitors. Non-discriminated consumers can write letters, carry signs outside the door, and switch their service to try to reverse the discrimination.

With a natural monopoly there is no such recourse. And since it is a monopoly there is a compelling state interest in keeping its doors open to all.

Refusing to do business with individuals who don't pay their bills is not discrimination. Assuming that a black person won't pay his bill and refusing to do business with him on that basis is discrimination.

A company like Bell south does not have the right to limit the choices of minority consumers by withholding their product. The fact that there may be alternatives for the consumer is irrelevant.

Glory

[Tmy]

Originally posted by corplinx


Its irrelevant whether or not _you_ think that a business discriminates for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason. The reason is none of your business.

If a business can only discriminate in ways that _you_ think are acceptable, then the freedom of the business owner is compromised by your subjectivity.

There is no constitutional right to run a business as you see fit with only "market forces" as your only control. We have a number of laws ( created by our representatives) regulating just about everything when it comes to commerence. Thet werent created by my subjectivity. Its a pain in the ass but its created quite a successful ecomic system that is the envy world wide.

Sure we could allow the business owners to do as they please all in the name of money. Of course if that was the case then there would be no way from stopping the neighbood crack dealer from selling drugs to your kid. After all who are we to dictate to the market???

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Glory



A company like Bell south does not have the right to limit the choices of minority consumers by withholding their product. The fact that there may be alternatives for the consumer is irrelevant.


No what is irrelevant is your subjective opinion about who the business should deal with. Unless you are a shareholder it is simply not your call to make.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy


There is no constitutional right to run a business as you see fit with only "market forces" as your only control.

You are hopeless.
A. the only thing that prevents you from choosing whom you do business with is the law
B. without said law, there is nothing in the constitution that prevents you from freely of association in business dealings
C. the absense of said regulation is the freedom


In other words, there doesnt have to be an explicit right for every free action you may lawfully take in a free society.

Tmy, talking with you takes too much out of me. There is too much deprogramming and to no end since you are probably intractable. Can I pay you 50 bucks to leave the forum, tear up your voter registration, and live blissfully ignorant as you are? ;)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
That's easy: the government. :p

The same government that determines that markets should be free, the same government that determines that property rights exist and should be protected.

So not only can the government decree that markets are free, it can also decree that markets should be accessible to everyone.

The government did not "determine" that. The government simply observed pre-existing conditions. All that our governement can do is restrict.

Where do you think government has no right to be, You really seem to have a governmental micro-management wish.

[Glory]

Originally posted by corplinx


No what is irrelevant is your subjective opinion about who the business should deal with. Unless you are a shareholder it is simply not your call to make.

The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you.

Glory

[Tmy]

Originally posted by corplinx



Tmy, talking with you takes too much out of me.

AHA! My plan is working!:p


You are right, there are laws. Though people act as if these laws violate the constitution OR that they were bestowed upon us by the all powerful Court of Supremes! ( damn that Chief Justice Diana Ross).


Imagien being foired from your livelyhood cause Nam' tiger cage guy has a beef with the republicans who sent him off to war. If were not free to be republicans, do we truely have freedom.........ummm scratch that.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
BTW: Discriminating people also breaks dozens of human rights accords and is illegal! (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)Perhaps if he can't handle dealing with people he is likely to meet everyday, he should be seeking treatment for that.

Didn't the Soviets lock people up in mental hospitals who didn't observe proper socialist attitudes? So, a person cannot have opinions and act on them in his interpersonal life without being ill. Interesting.

[Glory]

Originally posted by corplinx


You are hopeless.
A. the only thing that prevents you from choosing whom you do business with is the law

That's right. Discrimination is against the law.

B. without said law, there is nothing in the constitution that prevents you from freely of association in business dealings

Anti discrimination laws have nothing to do with freedom of association. They are concerned with ensuring that one group is not less free than another group.

C. the absense of said regulation is the freedom

No, the absence of antidiscrimination laws is freedom for some. Anti discrimination laws guarantee freedom for all.


In other words, there doesnt have to be an explicit right for every free action you may lawfully take in a free society.


Hence the need for laws which prohibit the subversion of people's rights.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by Ed


Didn't the Soviets lock people up in mental hospitals who didn't observe proper socialist attitudes? So, a person cannot have opinions and act on them in his interpersonal life without being ill. Interesting.

When an individual opens a business, he is tacitly agreeing to abide by the laws of the country it is in. In the US that includes anti discrimination laws. If he cannot run his business in accordance with the law of the land he does not get a free pass. He won't be allowed to run his business illegally regardless of what he may have been through.

Glory

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Ed
So, a person cannot have opinions and act on them in his interpersonal life without being ill. Interesting.Oh he can have opinions and act on them on his interpersonal life all he wants without being ill. He can not however be frightened to this day by the accent, the language and waking up in cold sweat from memories of torture without being ill. He needs help for that.

Also this is not about his interpersonal life, but about his professional life. He can choose the friends he likes and if he doesn't want any Vietnamese people among his friends that his is own choice. The fact that he can't do normal business with people he is likely to encounter while performing his occupation is a very different issue, IMHO.The government did not "determine" that. The government simply observed pre-existing conditions.There have been governments longer than there have been free markets. Property rights are things that are defined and enforced by governments, even Shanek recognizes that fact. In a way you are right: governments only restrict (not entirely true though). They restrict what you are allowed to do with what has been defined as someone else's property.

They also define what the trade rules are. So there is nothing unusual about the fact that they demand that free trade is accessible to everyone.

[toddjh]

Here are the premises I am seeing here from those who think discrimination should be legal:

1. Discrimination is bad.
2. The government should keep its hands out of things which are adequately controlled by market forces.
3. Discrimination is adequately controlled by market forces.

It's number 3 that I have an issue with. Sure, nearly everybody in this century recognizes that blacks and whites should be treated equally. I bet a business that openly discriminated against blacks would suffer financially, at least in many parts of the world.

But what about a group that it is socially acceptable to dislike? Atheists, for example, which should hit close to home for many of us? If such discrimination is routine and practiced as a matter of course, the market will be powerless to solve the problem, since atheists are a small enough group that they lack sufficient bargaining power of their own, and the discrimination is accepted by enough people that business is not hurt by participating in it. Atheists themselves cannot really help things along by picking where they choose to shop because the number of "atheist-friendly" establishments is too small. They can't start their own alternatives because the number of people who would frequent atheist-run establishments is likewise too small.

In short, there's the potential for a self-sustaining, unjust situation that market forces are largely incapable of solving. Thinking otherwise depends on viewing large segments of the population as rational and enlightened, which I think few of us here will admit.

Jeremy

[Tmy]

Dont fret! There are still people you CAN dicriminate against somewhat. THeres fat people, transvestites, Yankee fans, long haired freaks. You just have to look!

[Larspeart]

<--- fat person raising his hand.

I'm an open target. Go ahead! Make fun of me, poke jokes, give me rude stares, whisper behind my back (or right in front of me!).

Yup, me and the gay community. Still safe to pick on. Course, I'll bet $10 bucks it'll be safe to pick on us fat people faaaaaaaaaar longer then it will be to pick on gays.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Larspeart
<--- fat person raising his hand.

I'm an open target. Go ahead! Make fun of me, poke jokes, give me rude stares, whisper behind my back (or right in front of me!).

Yup, me and the gay community. Still safe to pick on. Course, I'll bet $10 bucks it'll be safe to pick on us fat people faaaaaaaaaar longer then it will be to pick on gays.

When I was in 'Nam I was kept in a tiger cage for two years. This fat guard would tourture me and poke me with sticks.

Now I own my own fleet of Pretzel carts. Ill be damned if the govt forces me to hire any of you fat people. Why the thought of Rush Limbaugh still keeps me up at night.:p

[netrox]

Personally, I like A&F just because it's mostly WHITE. All American, all white. I am white. I prefer whites.

Does it mean that I hate non-whites? Not at all.

Do I support A&F's policy? Yes!!!!

Look at Hooters... all waitresses with nice boobs! Where are the hot looking men with muscles?! Look at BET. Only blacks are hired. Look at Ebony, only blacks in magazines. Look at FUBU, virtally all minorities. Where is white magazine? Where is white tv network? We need that. But no, we'd be sued for discrimination!

-jeff

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by toddjh
Here are the premises I am seeing here from those who think discrimination should be legal:

1. Discrimination is bad.
2. The government should keep its hands out of things which are adequately controlled by market forces.
3. Discrimination is adequately controlled by market forces.

It's number 3 that I have an issue with. Sure, nearly everybody in this century recognizes that blacks and whites should be treated equally. I bet a business that openly discriminated against blacks would suffer financially, at least in many parts of the world.

But what about a group that it is socially acceptable to dislike? Atheists, for example, which should hit close to home for many of us? If such discrimination is routine and practiced as a matter of course, the market will be powerless to solve the problem, since atheists are a small enough group that they lack sufficient bargaining power of their own, and the discrimination is accepted by enough people that business is not hurt by participating in it. Atheists themselves cannot really help things along by picking where they choose to shop because the number of "atheist-friendly" establishments is too small. They can't start their own alternatives because the number of people who would frequent atheist-run establishments is likewise too small.

In short, there's the potential for a self-sustaining, unjust situation that market forces are largely incapable of solving. Thinking otherwise depends on viewing large segments of the population as rational and enlightened, which I think few of us here will admit.

Jeremy

First and foremost it's hard to tell who is atheist and who isn't and it's so easy to lie and say you are a god-fearing person.

Second, everyone is missing two points. I know it's illegal to do this, I am asking if it should remain illegal to do this -- hypothetical conversation for the slow people in the audience. Also, you are all forgetting that the discrimination that happened in this country before was ENFORCED BY LAW. It was, in fact, illegal to have a diverse establishment and diverse customer base, wonders of government at work here, for our socialist friends in the audience.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Glory


Hence the need for laws which prohibit the subversion of people's rights.

Glory [/B]

You don't understand what rights are. You don't have a right to work at the Nation of Islam bookstore. The person who does have a right is the bookstore owner who has the right to shut his door to you for any reason he chooses. This does not limit your freedom in any way. He is not the government, he is a not a natural monopoly.

Once again, its hard to have a debate with people like you and Tmy when you don't understand the basic terms of the discussion.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
First and foremost it's hard to tell who is atheist and who isn't and it's so easy to lie and say you are a god-fearing person.People shouldn't have to. They should be able to be open about their non-beliefs without fear of persecution.I know it's illegal to do this, I am asking if it should remain illegal to do thisUnless you can conclusively show that free market forces alone are enough to stop it, I'd say yes.

[corplinx]

I think there is really something to be shown in the people in this thread. People like me have pragmatic views. Obviously you shouldn't let natural monopolies discriminate. Thats a given. Where do the "I think a business owner should hire according to my ideals" people give in an inch though? They don't. They don't believe in freedom. They make up fictitious consumer and worker rights that don't exist to justify their anti-freedom beliefs. After all, if something is against racism it must be pro-freedom, right?

This isnt a black and white issue. If you repeal discrimination laws you wont wake up to white-only production plants. For one thing, the government will obivously discriminate itself saying that government contracts and the people who supply them must comply with anti-discrimination policies that the government itself abides by. This alone guarantees that you won't wake up in a country of race-only large businesses.

I think some people are just blinded by their hatred of racism to the point of cognitive dissonance.

Also, I wonder if the government could encourage tolerance and minority hiring by making goverment anti-discriminatory hiring part of the conditions of incorporating your business.

This idea that repealing anti-discrimination laws for private business is defacto bad is small-minded at best. There are many ways the goverment can encourage diversity of hiring and customer service without infringing the freedom of the business owner.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Grammatron


First and foremost it's hard to tell who is atheist and who isn't and it's so easy to lie and say you are a god-fearing person.

Second, everyone is missing two points. I know it's illegal to do this, I am asking if it should remain illegal to do this -- hypothetical conversation for the slow people in the audience. Also, you are all forgetting that the discrimination that happened in this country before was ENFORCED BY LAW. It was, in fact, illegal to have a diverse establishment and diverse customer base, wonders of government at work here, for our socialist friends in the audience.

No it wasn't. It came to be supported by law. It existed before Jim Crow Laws and it existed after Jim Crow laws. This is a causation falacy. Discrimination was not the result of legislation. Legislation was the result of discrimination. This is true of both Jim Crow laws and antidiscrimination laws.

Glory

[Ranb]

Originally posted by ssibal
Companies should be able to hire or not hire whomever they want as long as they are not funded with tax dollars in any way.

Yes, but you have to remember that some of the employees were FIRED for not being "white" enough. This is diffeant than hiring practises.

Ranb

[Glory]

Originally posted by corplinx


You don't understand what rights are. You don't have a right to work at the Nation of Islam bookstore. The person who does have a right is the bookstore owner who has the right to shut his door to you for any reason he chooses. This does not limit your freedom in any way. He is not the government, he is a not a natural monopoly.

Once again, its hard to have a debate with people like you and Tmy when you don't understand the basic terms of the discussion.

You don't understand history, freedom, or or most of the laws on this issue. You know just enough about the world to consistently and reliably reach the wrong conclusions.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think there is really something to be shown in the people in this thread. People like me have pragmatic views. Obviously you shouldn't let natural monopolies discriminate. Thats a given. Where do the "I think a business owner should hire according to my ideals" people give in an inch though? They don't. They don't believe in freedom. They make up fictitious consumer and worker rights that don't exist to justify their anti-freedom beliefs. After all, if something is against racism it must be pro-freedom, right?

This isnt a black and white issue. If you repeal discrimination laws you wont wake up to white-only production plants. For one thing, the government will obivously discriminate itself saying that government contracts and the people who supply them must comply with anti-discrimination policies that the government itself abides by. This alone guarantees that you won't wake up in a country of race-only large businesses.

I think some people are just blinded by their hatred of racism to the point of cognitive dissonance.

Also, I wonder if the government could encourage tolerance and minority hiring by making goverment anti-discriminatory hiring part of the conditions of incorporating your business.

This idea that repealing anti-discrimination laws for private business is defacto bad is small-minded at best. There are many ways the goverment can encourage diversity of hiring and customer service without infringing the freedom of the business owner.

One more time. Business owners do not have the right to trample the freedom of others in their capacity as business operators. That is a right they don't have. Big or small, it doesn't matter. Discrimination is anathema to freedom.

Glory

[Earthborn]

Corplinx, it is wonderfull how you can misrepresent your opponents arguments! :)They make up fictitious consumer and worker rights that don't exist to justify their anti-freedom beliefs.Rights that are written in the lawbooks, and that are enforced, are hardly fictitious. Those are really there!They don't believe in freedom.Or they believe in the freedom of the individual in chosing their own jobs or where they want to shop, instead of the freedom of companies to infringe on that freedom.This isnt a black and white issue. If you repeal discrimination laws you wont wake up to white-only production plants.Of course not. But it will mean that the government tells people that it will tolerate discrimination. In some areas where people are likely to discriminate this can lead to serious problems for people in minority groups.For one thing, the government will obivously discriminate itself saying that government contracts and the people who supply them must comply with anti-discrimination policies that the government itself abides by. This alone guarantees that you won't wake up in a country of race-only large businesses.So what if the government needs to do something in an area where after a while there are only discriminating businesses? What should it do then?I think some people are just blinded by their hatred of racism to the point of cognitive dissonance.Or maybe you are not trying to understand the arguments that are used against you.There are many ways the goverment can encourage diversity of hiring and customer service without infringing the freedom of the business owner.Why should that business owner have that freedom if the government is going to make it difficult for him to use that freedom anyway?You don't have a right to work at the Nation of Islam bookstore.And a Nation of Islam bookstore owner has no right to discriminate people who want to work there on the basis of race or religion or whatever.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Glory


One more time. Business owners do not have the right to trample the freedom of others in their capacity as business operators. That is a right they don't have. Big or small, it doesn't matter. Discrimination is anathema to freedom.

Glory

the "right to trample the freedom of others"

Nice strawman

" Discrimination is anathema to freedom"

No, limiting behavior you find offensive is anathema to freedom

Here's your sign.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Earthborn
And a Nation of Islam bookstore owner has no right to discriminate people who want to work there on the basis of race or religion or whatever.

You don't know what a right is then. I didn't understand that you fail to grasp the concept.

Laws are not rights.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Glory


Discrimination is anathema to freedom.



Interesting, what is your position on affirmative action?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by corplinx
You don't know what a right is then. I didn't understand that you fail to grasp the concept.

Laws are not rights.

I don't understand all this talk about rights. People have what rights they can defend! Anything else is just murky coffeehouse rhetoric.

Jeremy

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
People shouldn't have to. They should be able to be open about their non-beliefs without fear of persecution.Unless you can conclusively show that free market forces alone are enough to stop it, I'd say yes.

You have not answered my question Earthborn. Should the government decide who you hire to wash your car, clean your house, and cut your grass to make sure you are not discriminating?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by corplinx
You don't know what a right is then. I didn't understand that you fail to grasp the concept.

Laws are not rights.Why don't you try to explain it then?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Glory


No it wasn't. It came to be supported by law. It existed before Jim Crow Laws and it existed after Jim Crow laws. This is a causation falacy. Discrimination was not the result of legislation. Legislation was the result of discrimination. This is true of both Jim Crow laws and antidiscrimination laws.

Glory

Hello?! Governments enact laws to enforce what people do not want to do on their own; otherwise there would be no point to the law!

[corplinx]

I should make a list of some of the more creative rights made up by people in this thread and the strawman rights they have made up to counter my arguements. I am rereading this thread and some of these are amusing.

Now, I for one think a strawman doesnt necessarily mean you arguement is wrong. Strawmen can be funny, poignant, and in a relaxed internet forum quite apt.

However, someone of you entirely base your counter-arguements on these. Please refer to baloney detection kit to find out why this is not good.

I hate when a thread becomes "strawman" shot back and forth in accusation but if this is all you have to support why people shouldnt be free to discriminate in business practices then perhaps its time for you to quietly exit the thread.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
You have not answered my question Earthborn. Should the government decide who you hire to wash your car, clean your house, and cut your grass to make sure you are not discriminating?Hmmm, saying that your opponent has not answered the question and then asking a question you have not asked before to pretend that was the question that wasn't answered. Clever debating tactic! :)

No, the government should not decide who I can hire to do whatever job I offer. It should however allow people to sue me if I don't hire them for no other reason than something completely irrelevant for the job, like religion, or skincolour or sexual preference or whatever. It can also prohibit any signs saying that I will not allow specific people in my shop.Hello?! Governments enact laws to enforce what people do not want to do on their own; otherwise there would be no point to the law!True, but this is also true: if a specific law does not have support from a large portion of the population, then it never becomes a law.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by corplinx
However, someone of you entirely base your counter-arguements on these.So you acuse people of using strawman fallacies, but you are not going to point them out or explain to us why you think they are strawman fallacies? A bit of an easy way out, don't you think?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Hmmm, saying that your opponent has not answered the question and then asking a question you have not asked before to pretend that was the question that wasn't answered. Clever debating tactic! :)

I sure did, it's 11th(I believe) post on the first page :)

No, the government should not decide who I can hire to do whatever job I offer. It should however allow people to sue me if I don't hire them for no other reason than something completely irrelevant for the job, like religion, or skincolour or sexual preference or whatever. It can also prohibit any signs saying that I will not allow specific people in my shop.True, but this is also true: if a specific law does not have support from a large portion of the population, then it never becomes a law.

I'm sorry you can't have it both ways, either the government tells you who to hire or they don't, the lawsuits are genererally over laws the government has, i.e. telling you what to do.

So if you live in a town where half the people are white and half are black and you need two gardners you need to go out and find one white gardner and one black no matter how long it takes you less someone accuses you of being racist?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
True, but this is also true: if a specific law does not have support from a large portion of the population, then it never becomes a law.

Yeah, that's a none-truth.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I sure did, it's 11th(I believe) post on the first page :)Okay, I see it now. No, that is definitely not the same question.

This is the first question:
"Tell me, should the government control to make sure that the people you hire to wash your car, clean your house, repair your vehicle are diverse and that you are not discriminating?"
This is the second:
"Should the government decide who you hire to wash your car, clean your house, and cut your grass to make sure you are not discriminating?"

The first asks whether the government should make sure I am not discriminating, and I agree with that. The second question asks whether the government should decide who I hire, and I don't agree with that. The two things are definitely not the same.I'm sorry you can't have it both ways, either the government tells you who to hire or they don't, the lawsuits are genererally over laws the government has, i.e. telling you what to do.The government does not have to tell me who to hire in order to prevent me from discriminating.So if you live in a town where half the people are white and half are black and you need two gardners you need to go out and find one white gardner and one black no matter how long it takes you less someone accuses you of being racist?I should not set quotas which is discriminating: I would be discriminating against people with the same skincolour as the gardner I hired first!. Instead the easiest way to make sure I am not discriminating as making sure I simply do not know (http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/objectify.txt) about the skincolour of the gardners I hire!

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Earthborn
So you acuse people of using strawman fallacies, but you are not going to point them out or explain to us why you think they are strawman fallacies? A bit of an easy way out, don't you think?

I was trying to be polite actually and drop someone a hint. Didn't mean to seem dodgy. :)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Glory


One more time. Business owners do not have the right to trample the freedom of others in their capacity as business operators. That is a right they don't have. Big or small, it doesn't matter. Discrimination is anathema to freedom.

Glory

So you are against affirmative action?

[a_unique_person]

Are we saying a dollar is more important than a person? I don't think so.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ranb


Yes, but you have to remember that some of the employees were FIRED for not being "white" enough. This is diffeant than hiring practises.

Ranb

Well, that is a different matter. I say the company was wrong for doing that.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Tony


Interesting, what is your position on affirmative action?

Affirmative action was a necessary evil but it's been handled all wrong.

First of all, affirmative action has righted a lot of wrongs. However, I find it hard to believe that the best plan to right those wrongs involves committing further wrongs. Violating the rights of one group because another group has had their rights violated for a long time is , well, suffice to say that two wrongs don't make a right. The problem is I don't have a better plan. I don't know what else could have been done. Millions of minorities were never going to be given a fair shot if employers, universities and professional schools had not been forced to take them in favour of other candidates.

That was then. This is now.

Discriminating is against the law. Minorities are protected from it by that legislation. I think affirmative action's time is up. Poverty is the biggest problem facing minorities now. That is the issue which much be addressed. Specifically education disparity must be rectified. Improve education for the poor and you will go a long way to combatting discrimination.

Glory

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Glory


First of all, affirmative action has righted a lot of wrongs.

What, they have a time machine?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Glory


Affirmative action was a necessary evil but it's been handled all wrong.

First of all, affirmative action has righted a lot of wrongs. However, I find it hard to believe that the best plan to right those wrongs involves committing further wrongs. Violating the rights of one group because another group has had their rights violated for a long time is , well, suffice to say that two wrongs don't make a right. The problem is I don't have a better plan. I don't know what else could have been done. Millions of minorities were never going to be given a fair shot if employers, universities and professional schools had not been forced to take them in favour of other candidates.

That was then. This is now.

Discriminating is against the law. Minorities are protected from it by that legislation. I think affirmative action's time is up. Poverty is the biggest problem facing minorities now. That is the issue which much be addressed. Specifically education disparity must be rectified. Improve education for the poor and you will go a long way to combatting discrimination.

Glory

No, the biggest problem facing minorities are white liberals and black "leaders".

[Glory]

Originally posted by Ed


No, the biggest problem facing minorities are white liberals and black "leaders".

Whatever.:rolleyes:

Glory

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Are we saying a dollar is more important than a person? I don't think so.

No I'm saying that if I want to run a company that is staffed exclusively with Asians, I should have a right to that.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Hello?! Governments enact laws to enforce what people do not want to do on their own; otherwise there would be no point to the law!

Jim Crow laws were passed shortly after the Civil war as a way to deal legally with newly freed slaves. Whites needed a legal excuse to punish blacks who tried to exercise their rights as free Americans. Until segregation was legislated a black man could claim that his being in a particular restaurant was not against the law. That by sitting in the park where he could see white girls he wasn't breaking any laws. Whites were not the ones being arrested under Jim Crow laws 99% of the time. The laws were about controlling blacks who suddenly went from being livestock to people in the eyes of the law but not in the eyes of the white people.

You make it seem as though the government shoved segregation down whites' throats by passing these laws. That if they hadn't passed those laws there would not have been any discrimination. This is the exact opposite of the truth.

BTW, Jim Crow laws were not federal laws. They were passed by states and cities. In other words, the voting people passed these laws for themselves.

Glory

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
You make it seem as though the government shoved segregation down whites' throats by passing these laws. That if they hadn't passed those laws there would not have been any discrimination. This is the exact opposite of the truth.

No, it isn't. In fact, those laws had to be actively enforced. Turns out, bus companies and their drivers didn't care who sat where; neither did restaurant owners. They only started enforcing it on their own when the government threatened&mdash;and in some cases made good on the thread&mdash;to staff a policeman on every bus and in every restaurant. They complied out of fear; fear of the guns wielded by big government.

In other words, it was a case of a small number of people using the force of government to push their will onto others. When has it ever been otherwise?

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it isn't. In fact, those laws had to be actively enforced. Turns out, bus companies and their drivers didn't care who sat where; neither did restaurant owners. They only started enforcing it on their own when the government threatened&mdash;and in some cases made good on the thread&mdash;to staff a policeman on every bus and in every restaurant. They complied out of fear; fear of the guns wielded by big government.

In other words, it was a case of a small number of people using the force of government to push their will onto others. When has it ever been otherwise?

Big government? These were local ordinances for the most part, not federal laws.

Buses? In the 1870's? Jim Crow laws were around for over 90 years. In that time their were all sorts of incidents. None of them is evidence that discrimination is the fault of big government. Stop reading propaganda.

Glory

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Grammatron


No I'm saying that if I want to run a company that is staffed exclusively with Asians, I should have a right to that.
If you're arguing for the right of employers to do what the heck they want, I'd have to ask how you arrive at that right, and if you would recognise that such a right would impinge on the workers' right to sell their labour? Just as a worker has no right to demand that a particular employer should be forced to purchase their labour, an employer has no right to reject a potential employee on factors which are wholly unrelated to the job at hand.

If you're arguing that employers should have the right to select who they consider to be the most appropriate candidate for the job, then surely any factor which is not relevant to that job—which may be ethncity, gender, age or religious affiliation—is just that; irrelevant, and therefore outside the scope of the employers' rights.

[Tmy]

Why would anyone want companies to have the ability to discriminate in such ways? What good comes out of it?

What else is ok. Company can hire all the illegals they want? Lie in advertising? Overcharge your credit card? Sell you broken goods?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why would anyone want companies to have the ability to discriminate in such ways? What good comes out of it?
There's a problem with measuring rights wholly in terms of what good comes out of it, because the definition of what is good is subjective and open to abuse; for instance, Christians might decide you should go to church every Sunday because it's good for your immortal soul, but that's a pretty subjective, falsely dichotmous and question begging. Also not all things which have no obvious good are necessarily bads. You could argue that there's no obvious good comes out of going for a drink at a bar (it doesn't have any nutritional benefit) but it's that any reason to prevent people from going? The problems only arise when people try to equivocate rights which are wholly unrelated, such as the right of free congress with the right to employ people.

[Tmy]

I'm just interested in peoples reasoning. I dont really buy the whole "I just dont want govt to tell me what to do" line. I think thats pretextual to underling racist attitudes and resentment of minorities. Look at the examples, they are all raced based.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Glory


Big government? These were local ordinances for the most part, not federal laws.

Buses? In the 1870's? Jim Crow laws were around for over 90 years. In that time their were all sorts of incidents. None of them is evidence that discrimination is the fault of big government. Stop reading propaganda.

Glory

The famous Rosa Parks inspired bus boycott was successful only after it had gone on for a year with no result and the federal government stepped in.

Governor Wallace did not move off the schoolhouse steps until JFK federalized Wallace's national guard troops and sent them in to enforce the law.

There are plenty of examples of the federal government having to step in to undo local laws.

I don't entirely buy shanek's argument that the grassroots wasn't discriminatory and only went along out of fear of the local government. After all, who voted for that government?

Common sense. It was the will of The People.

[Luke T.]

If there are laws which say shopowners cannot discriminate in their hiring practices, and there are shopowners who want that law repealed, then common sense dictates they want it repealed so they may discriminate.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tmy
I'm just interested in peoples reasoning. I dont really buy the whole "I just dont want govt to tell me what to do" line. I think thats pretextual to underling racist attitudes and resentment of minorities. Look at the examples, they are all raced based.
Well, for me this is always the interesting thing; there's laws and regulations and there's cultural norms and values and too often they're treated in isolation, when actually it's way more complex. For instance, people might be on the whole law-abiding, but that doesn't necessarily mean they regulate their behaviour wholly in terms of the law of the land, it's often that the customs they're brought up with parallel the law. Sometimes those customs are an interpretation of law, and other times laws are an expression of those customs, which is what I understand Glory was arguing re: Jim Crow laws.

I've read arguments that government should be restricted because people are inherently good and left to their own devices they'll be good; I've read counter-arguments that say government is necessary because people are inherently bad. My personal view is that people are inherently neutral (on the whole) and respond to the norms and values of the environment they find themselves in, and that one of the primary roles of government is to keep those norms and values in check.

The fact that people are giving examples based on race shows that regardless of government legislation (and the PC thought police :rolleyes: ), racialist (as in negative/positive attitudes to the idea of race) concepts still have a fundamental grip on the public imagination, and no amount of legislation can alter that; in fact it can often exacerbate the situation by sensitising people tp issues they'd probably not otherwise be bothered about. But the dichotomy is that without legislation to check certain racist activities, it's unlikely that those racist activities would've disappeared of their own accord.

Edited to fix smilies

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why would anyone want companies to have the ability to discriminate in such ways? What good comes out of it?


You still don' t get it. It _doesn't matter_ if it makes sense or good comes of it. Part of freedom is the right to be a no good lousy assh*le.

Companies already discriminate. When you go in for an interview, where you went to college, where you live in town, and other factors are all taken into consideration. Some of these biases are just as stupid as racial bias in that the interviewer assumes you are superior/inferior based on these criteria. Some interviewers might see being morbidly obese as a sign that the interviewee has bad willpower and self-control. Of course, the guy could have a gland problem. However, when your hiring you try to go for safe-bets.

Discrimination is the natural order of things. Some forms help us make good decisions, some forms are innocuous, and some forms are downright stupid.

[Tmy]

But you do have the right to be an a-hole. Im fine wh that. But the question i guess is should a BUSINESS have the right to be an a-hole. There are alot of personal rights that do not transfer into the business field.

Wht you dont get is that in the commerce it does matter if "good" comes out of it cause the state has a big interest in healthy economy. All these rules an regs arent put in place for the fun of it. They arise as solutions to problems

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by corplinx


You still don' t get it. It _doesn't matter_ if it makes sense or good comes of it. Part of freedom is the right to be a no good lousy assh*le.
There's a flaw here–freedoms and rights are not the same thing; rights necessarily limit freedoms by making sure your rights don't interfere with someone else's rights. People have the right to be complete arses only up to the point where it interefers with the ability of other people to pursue their rights, but freedom to be an arse in and of itself doesn't limit the effects that arseness can have on others.
Discrimination is the natural order of things. Some forms help us make good decisions, some forms are innocuous, and some forms are downright stupid.
Naturalistic fallacy, and as this has no bearing on the rights of employers to hire/not hire employees, a non-sequitur to boot! :)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy
But you do have the right to be an a-hole. Im fine wh that. But the question i guess is should a BUSINESS have the right to be an a-hole.

A business is a person or group of persons, How come you want try to make it something artificial for the point of making a point?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by BillyTK

People have the right to be complete arses only up to the point where it interefers with the ability of other people to pursue their rights


Believe it or not, you don't have the right to have a job at the cracker factory. That's the point. People like Tmy and Glory mistakenly believe there is some you have to work where you want.

The true right is that of the proprietor of the cracker factory to select whom he deals with and employs.

[daenku32]

All I can say is that I don't hesitate a moment to discriminate against discriminatory people/companies.

Same goes for religion. People tell me I'll go to hell for being an Atheist, and I will just tell them to "Go to hell, a**hole".

But if there is a policy to keep everyone nice for the good of the society, I'll make sure EVERYONE follows it.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by corplinx


A business is a person or group of persons, How come you want try to make it something artificial for the point of making a point?

I think by definition a corporation is an artifical person.

Im not saying that everyone has a rightt to work at company x, or that company x has to hire the next person who walks in the door. That would be rediculous. On the flip side the company cant do whatever it pleases.

I dont want the govt to tell Mrs. Fields what to put in her cookies, but Im ok with the govt prohibiting Mrs. Fields from putting cynide in her cookies.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by corplinx


Believe it or not, you don't have the right to have a job at the cracker factory. That's the point. People like Tmy and Glory mistakenly believe there is some you have to work where you want.

The true right is that of the proprietor of the cracker factory to select whom he deals with and employs.
Not strictly true as I argued here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31964&pagenumber=3#post1870224077). The right of the employer to employ someone is balanced by the right of the (potential) employee to sell their labour to that employer. The employer has no automatic right which supercedes or negates the rights of their employees, but if you think I'm wrong, I'd be interested in reading how you'd explain such a right. :)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by BillyTK

The right of the employer to employ someone is balanced by the right of the (potential) employee to sell their labour to that employer.

All I said was the employer has the right to select. Of course the potential employee has the right to refuse.

The "right to choose" as it applies to work is really simple. The employer has a right to choose who it wants to hire, and potential employees have a right to accept labor offered to you. In other words, when an employer selects you the employment is not compulsory.

Currently, these rights are impeded on the employer side by laws meant to correct a situation that was once mandated by law almost half a century ago. [edited, i wrote decade at first, must be the crack i smoked at lunchtime]

[toddjh]

Originally posted by corplinx
All I said was the employer has the right to select. Of course the potential employee has the right to refuse.

The "right to choose" as it applies to work is really simple. The employer has a right to choose who it wants to hire, and potential employees have a right to accept labor offered to you. In other words, when an employer selects you the employment is not compulsory.

What is the source of these putative "rights?" Obviously many people at all levels of government, including the Supreme Court, disagree with you. It seems to me you're trying to elevate your personal opinion to the position of natural law by using that term.

Jeremy

[Tmy]

Are you saying that employee discrimination no longer exists and the law is moot?? If that is the case then the employer really has nothing to fear of the law. After all hes not illegally discriminating cause discrimination doesnt exist.


Do you think child labor laws are an unfair birden to employers?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy

Do you think child labor laws are an unfair birden to employers?

Nice way to try to change the subject.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by corplinx


The "right to choose" as it applies to work is really simple. The employer has a right to choose who it wants to hire, and potential employees have a right to accept labor offered to you

How is that changing the subject of employers hiring who they want vs. govt restrictions on that "right".

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
Big government? These were local ordinances for the most part, not federal laws.

It doesn't have to be Federal to be big government. Big government can be state or even local. Example: Earlier this year the County Commissioners in my home county stopped a guy from opening a restaurant out of fear that he was going to sell alcohol, even though the year before the county voted in favor of five different referenda which allowed businesses to sell alcohol. THAT is big government. It's intrusive and violates our rights. It doesn't have to be Federal to do that.

Buses? In the 1870's?

It was an example. Learn to think. Or at least stop avoiding the very valid points I brought up to you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
If you're arguing for the right of employers to do what the heck they want, I'd have to ask how you arrive at that right,

Because the employer/employee relationship is one of a voluntary agreement, which neither side should be forced into or out of.

and if you would recognise that such a right would impinge on the workers' right to sell their labour?

No, it doesn't. Again, it's a voluntary arrangement. If I sell a car, but you just don't want to buy it, you are in no way impinging on my right to sell the car. Same if I try to sell you my labor. You still have a right to buy whatever car you want, or none at all.

Just as a worker has no right to demand that a particular employer should be forced to purchase their labour, an employer has no right to reject a potential employee on factors which are wholly unrelated to the job at hand.

I just cannot make the above work at all logically. You're basically saying that a worker has no right to force an employer to hire him, but the employer should be forced to hire him anyway.

If you're arguing that employers should have the right to select who they consider to be the most appropriate candidate for the job, then surely any factor which is not relevant to that job—which may be ethncity, gender, age or religious affiliation—is just that; irrelevant, and therefore outside the scope of the employers' rights.

And who are you to make that decision for the employer?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why would anyone want companies to have the ability to discriminate in such ways? What good comes out of it?

The creation of wealth in the free market. Discrimination is a necessary component of competition. You might not like the way some people practice it, but look at all of the harm that has been done trying to uphold affirmative action.

What else is ok. Company can hire all the illegals they want? Lie in advertising? Overcharge your credit card? Sell you broken goods?

Those are forms of fraud. How can you equate the two?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
Because the employer/employee relationship is one of a voluntary agreement, which neither side should be forced into or out of.

Just out of curiosity, what is your position on blackmail? Is that not also a voluntary agreement?

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't entirely buy shanek's argument that the grassroots wasn't discriminatory and only went along out of fear of the local government. After all, who voted for that government?

Common sense. It was the will of The People.

And again, we see that Common Sense is neither common nor sense. In the example I mentioned above, the majority of the county voters said to let businesses sell alcohol. The would-be restaurant owner was denied his zoning request (after the planning board had approved it unanimously) after ONE WOMAN stepped up and made an impassioned speech laced with religious arguments. ONE WOMAN and three of the five County Commissioners who listened to her overruled the will of the people.

I really don't see how people like you can just explain stuff like that away as "the will of the voters," when clearly what the voters want has little if anything to do with it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
If there are laws which say shopowners cannot discriminate in their hiring practices, and there are shopowners who want that law repealed, then common sense dictates they want it repealed so they may discriminate.

Again with the nonsensical Common Sense. Maybe they just don't want to have the government fishing through their records seeing if they're discriminating? Maybe they don't want to have to put up with every single minority applicant having the potential to sue them if they don't get hired? Haven't you ever thought about those aspects?

As I've pointed out too many times for people to ignore, there are fantastic costs associated with regulatory compliance.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
But the dichotomy is that without legislation to check certain racist activities, it's unlikely that those racist activities would've disappeared of their own accord.

And how do you reach this conclusion?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
There are alot of personal rights that do not transfer into the business field.

What are businesses made up of if not people?

It's amazing...If you talk in the business world, people say that individual rights don't matter because it's a business. When you look at personal rights, it doesn't matter because people are a part of "society" and signed some mythical contract and therefore the individual rights don't matter. Either way you look at it, the goal is clear: the destruction of individual rights.

All these rules an regs arent put in place for the fun of it. They arise as solutions to problems

And what such rules have actually made the economy better?

[shanek]

Originally posted by daenku32
But if there is a policy to keep everyone nice for the good of the society, I'll make sure EVERYONE follows it.

How can you force people to be nice?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont want the govt to tell Mrs. Fields what to put in her cookies, but Im ok with the govt prohibiting Mrs. Fields from putting cynide in her cookies.

Fair enough. But why do you see the right of Mrs. Fields to hire or not hire whomever she pleases as being in the latter category and not the former?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Do you think child labor laws are an unfair birden to employers?

Actually, I think child labor laws are an unfair burden on children. From the younger kids, who used to enjoy paper routes, to the older ones who would get a job at the local grocery store, they all built character, educated them, and gave them valuable work experience they could use later in life.

(Prediction: people will reply with the mythical children working 12 hours a day at hard labor for 10&cent;/hour...with no support for it whatsoever.)

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


It doesn't have to be Federal to be big government. Big government can be state or even local. Example: Earlier this year the County Commissioners in my home county stopped a guy from opening a restaurant out of fear that he was going to sell alcohol, even though the year before the county voted in favor of five different referenda which allowed businesses to sell alcohol. THAT is big government. It's intrusive and violates our rights. It doesn't have to be Federal to do that.

That is stupid government, not big government.



It was an example. Learn to think. Or at least stop avoiding the very valid points I brought up to you.

And which were those? That there was no discrimination but that enforced by Jim Crow Laws and that there would not have been if the government hadn't forced it on people? There is nothing to address. You are wrong, mistaken, misinformed, ignorant, and generally lacking in any real knowledge of what was going on.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


The creation of wealth in the free market. Discrimination is a necessary component of competition.

And you are wondering why we are against a free market? The creation of wealth for a few people at the expense of a lot of people is not something to fight for.

You might not like the way some people practice it, but look at all of the harm that has been done trying to uphold affirmative action.

Affirmative action is not the issue. I thought you were in favour of allowing discrimination, anyway. Affirmative action is not to your benefit, though, so that is out according to you.

Abolishing affirmative action will do nothing to bring about your vision. Discrimination will still be illegal.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


And again, we see that Common Sense is neither common nor sense. In the example I mentioned above, the majority of the county voters said to let businesses sell alcohol. The would-be restaurant owner was denied his zoning request (after the planning board had approved it unanimously) after ONE WOMAN stepped up and made an impassioned speech laced with religious arguments. ONE WOMAN and three of the five County Commissioners who listened to her overruled the will of the people.

I really don't see how people like you can just explain stuff like that away as "the will of the voters," when clearly what the voters want has little if anything to do with it.

Your example has nothing to do with Jim Crow Laws. It is not representative of the role usually played by government. All it shows is that your home town voted some idiots into office.

Glory

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Glory


Affirmative action is not the issue. I thought you were in favour of allowing discrimination, anyway. Affirmative action is not to your benefit, though, so that is out according to you.

Abolishing affirmative action will do nothing to bring about your vision. Discrimination will still be illegal.

Glory [/B]

Let me explain this to you again; make sure to read it many times if you don't think you understand it.

Private business should have a right to decide on their own whom to hire and who not to hire whatever their reasons might be. Affirmative action is enforced by the government and forces business to adhere to certain hiring standards. Do you not see the difference with voluntary action and forced action? If no, feel free to ask, I will try to make an example for you.

[Gem]

Actually, I think child labor laws are an unfair burden on children. From the younger kids, who used to enjoy paper routes, to the older ones who would get a job at the local grocery store, they all built character, educated them, and gave them valuable work experience they could use later in life.

(Prediction: people will reply with the mythical children working 12 hours a day at hard labor for 10¢/hour...with no support for it whatsoever.)

I have to agree children could work. But you forget history.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

You may be right about the 12 hour and 10 cents a day. But yeah, working in the mills "builds character."

This is why the free market is NEVER going to re-surface.

Gem

[JAR]

Originally posted by Glory
First of all, affirmative action has righted a lot of wrongs.
In Thomas Sowell's book "Ethnic America: A History" it says on page 223, "A number of governmental efforts have been made to advance blacks" and then later in the same paragraph it says, "The most controversial of the government programs has been "affirmative action," or racial quota hiring, established as "goals and timetables" in 1971. Economists have found these quota systems to have had little or no effect beyond what had already been achieved under "equal opportunity" policies in the 1960s. The public perception of "affirmative action" has, however, engendered strong resentment among whites in general - resentment exploited by growing racist organizations such as Ku Klux Klan and American Nazis, often in parts of the country where such organizations never flourished before. The historical alliance between Negro and Jewish organizations likewise broke up over the issue of quotas."

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Gem


This is why the free market is NEVER going to re-surface.

Gem

I just think its time allow more freedom in the markets. The perfect conditions needed for a truely free market to funtion like clockword obviously do not exist. However, conditions for a free market economics are much better than they were 100 or 150 years ago.

As far as child labor, I think this is one of those trump cards people like to whip out as if you repealed child labor laws all of a sudden the children would be put in union mining and steel jobs. This is plain silly.

Back in that fabulous decade called the 80s, my brother worked _illegally_ after school at a grain and feed store on the way home from school every day for 3 hours. He got paid less than minimum wage. He basically swept the floors and helped the elderly sole proprietor out (who couldnt afford to hire a minimum wage part time worker).

Was my brother abused? overworked? injured? No. He loved it. I think child labor laws should at least be "tweaked" so that what he did isn't illegal.

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


What are businesses made up of if not people?

Artificial constructs which employ people to produce a product or service.

It's amazing...If you talk in the business world, people say that individual rights don't matter because it's a business. When you look at personal rights, it doesn't matter because people are a part of "society" and signed some mythical contract and therefore the individual rights don't matter. Either way you look at it, the goal is clear: the destruction of individual rights.

Not at all. It is about a balance between individual rights and the good of the business and the society. Putting individual rights above all else leads to the breakdown of society. It is impossible to each person unlimited individual rights in every circumstance because too often people find the exercise of one person's rights is in direct conflict with the exercise of another person's. Everyman for himself is not society. It is barbarism.

Glory



And what such rules have actually made the economy better? [/B][/QUOTE]

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


Fair enough. But why do you see the right of Mrs. Fields to hire or not hire whomever she pleases as being in the latter category and not the former?

Flase dilemma. Her right to hire whomever she pleases is in niether category. In fact, there are no categories.

Nor is it an absolute right. There are plenty of guidelines to which she and every other employer must adhere.

Glory

[JAR]

Originally posted by Glory
[snip]
I think affirmative action's time is up. Poverty is the biggest problem facing minorities now.[snip]
Affirmative action was supposed to be used until the effects of past discrimination of certain groups of people were corrected. While it was used in California, affirmative action was not a success. What I mean by "was not a success" is that while it was used in California, it did not bring African-Americans at an equal economic standing with European-Americans.

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


And how do you reach this conclusion?

By observing history.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


Actually, I think child labor laws are an unfair burden on children. From the younger kids, who used to enjoy paper routes, to the older ones who would get a job at the local grocery store, they all built character, educated them, and gave them valuable work experience they could use later in life.

(Prediction: people will reply with the mythical children working 12 hours a day at hard labor for 10&cent;/hour...with no support for it whatsoever.)

No support except history.

[Gem]

I just think its time allow more freedom in the markets. The perfect conditions needed for a truely free market to funtion like clockword obviously do not exist. However, conditions for a free market economics are much better than they were 100 or 150 years ago.

As far as child labor, I think this is one of those trump cards people like to whip out as if you repealed child labor laws all of a sudden the children would be put in union mining and steel jobs. This is plain silly.

Back in that fabulous decade called the 80s, my brother worked _illegally_ after school at a grain and feed store on the way home from school every day for 3 hours. He got paid less than minimum wage. He basically swept the floors and helped the elderly sole proprietor out (who couldnt afford to hire a minimum wage part time worker).

Was my brother abused? overworked? injured? No. He loved it. I think child labor laws should at least be "tweaked" so that what he did isn't illegal.

It needs to be discussed. You are right that children aren't going to go back into steel mills if we remove the law.

It should be pointed out that your story has one difference between child labor of the 19th century to this one: He goes to school. The link I proved quotes a child who couldn't go to school because of work.

But just denying that children were abused in the late 19th century just calls for action.

Gem

P.S.: Also, I'd like to clarify my "free market will never resurface" remark. I think that "laissez-faire" capitalism will never resurface rather than free market. There is a difference.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
That is stupid government, not big government.

What's the difference?

And which were those?

That those racist laws had to be actively enforced because most people really didn't care about it.

There is nothing to address. You are wrong, mistaken, misinformed, ignorant, and generally lacking in any real knowledge of what was going on.

Uh-huh. And yet, you provide no data to support this. History is on my side. Why did they have to threaten to put policemen in buses or patrol restaurants to make sure the segregation laws were being enforced? Why can't you answer that?

[Glory]

Originally posted by corplinx


I just think its time allow more freedom in the markets. The perfect conditions needed for a truely free market to funtion like clockword obviously do not exist. However, conditions for a free market economics are much better than they were 100 or 150 years ago.

As far as child labor, I think this is one of those trump cards people like to whip out as if you repealed child labor laws all of a sudden the children would be put in union mining and steel jobs. This is plain silly.

Back in that fabulous decade called the 80s, my brother worked _illegally_ after school at a grain and feed store on the way home from school every day for 3 hours. He got paid less than minimum wage. He basically swept the floors and helped the elderly sole proprietor out (who couldnt afford to hire a minimum wage part time worker).

Was my brother abused? overworked? injured? No. He loved it. I think child labor laws should at least be "tweaked" so that what he did isn't illegal.

Tweak them so that children can not legally be abused. Everyone talks about sweat shops when they think of children working. Their are other jobs for children. They work at them to this day. Performing! Child actors are used, abused, and generally exploited by adults all the time. I personally don't want to go back to the days when they worked 16 hour days, and were at the beck and call of studios, producers, and their parents who often yanked them out of school to go to the set or on tour.

Glory

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
And you are wondering why we are against a free market? The creation of wealth for a few people at the expense of a lot of people is not something to fight for.

But that's not what a free market is; you're just showing your ignorance. The market creates wealth for everyone. That's why the US has the richest, fattest poor people of any nation and of all time.

Affirmative action is not the issue. I thought you were in favour of allowing discrimination, anyway. Affirmative action is not to your benefit, though, so that is out according to you.

Affirmative action is a racist government policy, just like the Jim Crow laws. I'm against racist government policies, so yes, I'm against affirmative action.

Your point?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
Your example has nothing to do with Jim Crow Laws.

It has to do with how government operates, which is not by the will of the voters, but the will of the minority of people who have both the time to lobby the government and the means of benefitting enough from it to make it worth their while.

It is not representative of the role usually played by government.

Yes, it is. At all levels at all times, we see exactly this phenomenon in play.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
You may be right about the 12 hour and 10 cents a day. But yeah, working in the mills "builds character."

Mills hadn't employed children for something like 20 years before the government instituted its first child labor law. The free market had already solved the problem; government, as usual, just stepped in and took the credit.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
Artificial constructs which employ people to produce a product or service.

Who actually does the employing? Who actually runs the company? Who manages the money, the books, the sales? Individual people do. Without the people, there is no "artificial construct." You're just redefining your terms. But when you enact legislation against companies, you are enacting legislation against people. And it's people who are going to have to pay for it.

Not at all. It is about a balance between individual rights and the good of the business and the society.

Perhaps, then, you can point out this concept in the Constitution?

Putting individual rights above all else leads to the breakdown of society.

Funny; in the one society where it was tried, it led to unprecedented prosperity.

It is impossible to each person unlimited individual rights in every circumstance because too often people find the exercise of one person's rights is in direct conflict with the exercise of another person's. Everyman for himself is not society. It is barbarism.

More "redefining the points." If it interferes with another person's execution of their rights, it isn't a right. If the right has been waived or forfeited, it is no longer a right.

And what such rules have actually made the economy better?

No answer?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
Flase dilemma. Her right to hire whomever she pleases is in niether category. In fact, there are no categories.

Nor is it an absolute right. There are plenty of guidelines to which she and every other employer must adhere.

Nice job avoiding answering the question.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
By observing history.

Could you elucidate?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
No support except history.

History that you never seem to want to cite...and the history that I have already mentioned shows the contrary.

Okay, challenge: The Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 1938. Show examples of these horrible forms of child labor occuring in 1937.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
But just denying that children were abused in the late 19th century just calls for action.

Who is denying that?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
Tweak them so that children can not legally be abused.

Children cannot legally be abused anyway, with or without the child labor laws. So what's the point?

[Gem]

The market creates wealth for everyone.

You're right. Below minimum wage and supporting a family IS creating lots of wealth. You're saying creating wealth is more important than a good living standard, then. And I'm sorry, but small wages in my book isn't equal to "creating wealth."

That's why the US has the richest, fattest poor people of any nation and of all time

Really? Being fat is an indicator of a better life than being skiny? And that has nothing to do with the new kinds of "poor" food and welfare? Nothing to do with minimum wage too either? Nothing to do with food stamps? Nothing to do with government public schools?

And while we're at it...

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/01/18/wage.gap/

How about a good wealth inequity?

Gem

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


What's the difference?



That those racist laws had to be actively enforced because most people really didn't care about it.



Uh-huh. And yet, you provide no data to support this. History is on my side. Why did they have to threaten to put policemen in buses or patrol restaurants to make sure the segregation laws were being enforced? Why can't you answer that?

You provide proof of that assertion and, while you're at it,make sure that proof supports your assertion that this was the norm in most of the country during more than half of the Jim Crow era. Isolated incidents don't indicate a nationwide trend which existed for the better part of 90 years.

Mean while, I suggest you pick up any sixth grade American history text. Look at the atrocities committed by whites against blacks during Jim Crow. Look at the crowds of angry whites protesting the integration of the schools. You may note that the soldiers with guns were enforcing integration not segregation. Read the accounts of people who lived during those 90 years instead of the propaganda of people who have been lying to you.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


But that's not what a free market is; you're just showing your ignorance. The market creates wealth for everyone. That's why the US has the richest, fattest poor people of any nation and of all time.

I thought that the government in this country was strangling the free market with regulations and intervention? Which is it? Is this a free market or isn't it? If it is, what are you complaining about? If it isn't, you can't use it as an example of the success of something it isn't.

The rest of your statement shows your ignorance and your bias.

Affirmative action is a racist government policy, just like the Jim Crow laws. I'm against racist government policies, so yes, I'm against affirmative action.

Your point?

You are against racist government policies but not against racist business policies if that's what the employer wants to do?

I told you that affirmative action is not the issue. You keep bringing it up.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


It has to do with how government operates, which is not by the will of the voters, but the will of the minority of people who have both the time to lobby the government and the means of benefitting enough from it to make it worth their while.

And those beneficiaries are the richest people in the country. The very people who will benefit the most from a free market.



Yes, it is. At all levels at all times, we see exactly this phenomenon in play.

Do you really want to be making blanket statements like this?

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


Mills hadn't employed children for something like 20 years before the government instituted its first child labor law. The free market had already solved the problem; government, as usual, just stepped in and took the credit.

And this information can be found where?

Assuming it's true, children were/are sewing in factories, working as servants in peoples homes and doing all sorts of other jobs. The hours were long, the work was hard and often dangerous, they were denied education and often were not well fed, housed or clothed.

The free market hadn't taken care of children. It used them and destroyed their lives. I'll warn you now, do not ask for an example because I have a personal one.

Glory

[Gem]

Mills hadn't employed children for something like 20 years before the government instituted its first child labor law. The free market had already solved the problem; government, as usual, just stepped in and took the credit.

As usual, you think the free market solved the problem. Not so. Businesses were continuing to use child labors even AGAINST the law.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/about.htm

Throughout America, local child labor laws were often ignored.

And also, why on earth would companies need child labor abroad if they didn't need it anymore?

Okay, challenge: The Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 1938. Show examples of these horrible forms of child labor occuring in 1937.

As early as the 1830s, many U.S. states had enacted laws restricting or prohibiting the employment of young children in industrial settings.

The act passed because the local government laws were not working. There were other acts before, but the free market ignored them and kept hiring children.


From 1908 to 1912, photographer Hine documented numerous gross violations of laws protecting young children.

Who is denying that?

people will reply with the mythical children working 12 hours a day at hard labor for 10¢/hour...with no support for it whatsoever
You are. This isn't a myth, like you said. It was real.

Let's do some math.
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/index.html
George earns a $1 some days usually 75 cents.

One dollar is 100 cents. Ten hours a day workweek and getting a dollar for each day of work will give you a wage of...

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
You're right. Below minimum wage and supporting a family IS creating lots of wealth.

Who is even at minimum wage and supporting a family? Most of the people making minimum wage are teenagers or single people living alone...and they don't stay at minimum wage for more than a year or two. Meanwhile, the minimum wage laws increase unemployment and force many other people out of work.

You're saying creating wealth is more important than a good living standard, then.

They're the same thing. Learn some economics. There's a whole thread on it.

Really? Being fat is an indicator of a better life than being skiny?

It's an indicator of food being plentiful, something that hasn't been the case until now. In fact, thanks to the free market, with the exception of the government-induced Great Depression we haven't had starvation in this country in 100 years.

And that has nothing to do with the new kinds of "poor" food and welfare?

Nope. It happened long before then.

Nothing to do with minimum wage too either?

Nope. The minimum wage just forces people out of work. Check the Macroeconomics thread to see why.

And while we're at it...

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/01/18/wage.gap/

How about a good wealth inequity?

Ah yes, the oft-refuted "wage gap." Point to the increasing gap and pretend it's a problem while ignoring the fact that the standard of living for the poorest Americans is increasing right along with it.

You're pulling out all of the same old long-refuted Socialist tricks. We've seen them before here many, many times.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
You provide proof of that assertion

YOU are the one who is claiming that it was otherwise. I'm just refuting it. The burden of proof is on you.

Mean while, I suggest you pick up any sixth grade American history text.

Ah, this explains where you got your faulty view of history from. I prefer more accurate, comprehensive texts.

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


Who actually does the employing? Who actually runs the company? Who manages the money, the books, the sales? Individual people do. Without the people, there is no "artificial construct." You're just redefining your terms. But when you enact legislation against companies, you are enacting legislation against people. And it's people who are going to have to pay for it.

People working for the company. Not just for their own gain, joy, and profit.



Perhaps, then, you can point out this concept in the Constitution?

It doesn't have to be in the constitution to be legal. It only has to not violate the constitution. Amazingly, not every concept of every philosophy of government ever devised is in the constitution.



Funny; in the one society where it was tried, it led to unprecedented prosperity.

And that society is...Argentina?

Prosperity for whom?


More "redefining the points." If it interferes with another person's execution of their rights, it isn't a right. If the right has been waived or forfeited, it is no longer a right.

It no longer stands as an impediment in one given situation. It is still a right, one which others still have.

So, there are limikts to individual rights? And when it is demonstrated that a persons rights are being violated by the exercise of another's rights, the latter mentioned rights don't actually exist?

So when minorities demonstrated that their hard won right to make a living was being nullified by the discrimination practiced by the majority of employers, the right to hire whomever they wanted was nullified. Discrimination became illegal. A right that you don't have can't be violated.



No answer?

What are you talking about?:confused: I didn't mention any rules improving society. Although, anti discrimination laws have improved society greatly.

Glory

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
I thought that the government in this country was strangling the free market with regulations and intervention?

It has more and more in recent decades, with measurable results. But the vast majority of this country has worked under a free market system, a system which is efficient and innovative enough to keep working even under the oppression it's experiencing now. We're still the country with the freest market, and we're still the country everyone else wants to come to, some of them literally dying to get here!

Is this a free market or isn't it?

False dichotomy. It's a free market that is being increasinly encroached upon by big government.

The rest of your statement shows your ignorance and your bias.

The rest of which statement?

You are against racist government policies but not against racist business policies if that's what the employer wants to do?

If the employer is stupid enough to want to drive his business into the ground, which is what racial policies do, that's his own problem. We can avoid racist businesses. We can't avoid a racist government.

I told you that affirmative action is not the issue.

So you claim, but it is exactly what you are supporting, whether you want to admit it or not.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
And those beneficiaries are the richest people in the country.

So why are you so supportive of the system that allows them to do this?

The very people who will benefit the most from a free market.

No, everyone benefits from a free market. These people are lobbying the government because they want to try and benefit unfairly in ways that the market won't allow. That's why, for example, the RIAA is rigorously enforcing laws they railroaded through the government instead of adapting to profit in the changing times. Follow the money.

Do you really want to be making blanket statements like this?

I really want to make THAT blanket statement, because it clearly fits what we find.

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


YOU are the one who is claiming that it was otherwise. I'm just refuting it. The burden of proof is on you.

I don't have to prove what is already documented more times than anyone can count.



[quote][b]Ah, this explains where you got your faulty view of history from. I prefer more accurate, comprehensive texts.

The ones that don't cloud the issue with facts.

Glory

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
And this information can be found where?

Duh, history.

Assuming it's true, children were/are sewing in factories, working as servants in peoples homes and doing all sorts of other jobs. The hours were long, the work was hard and often dangerous, they were denied education and often were not well fed, housed or clothed.

And once the free market created enough wealth where they didn't have to do that anymore, they didn't have to do that anymore.

I'll warn you now, do not ask for an example because I have a personal one.

Go for it. Even if it is a personal anecdote, it's better than what you've presented so far, which is nothing.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
As usual, you think the free market solved the problem. Not so. Businesses were continuing to use child labors even AGAINST the law.

Hmmm...that whole post, and not one direct response that fits my challenge.

You did talk about earlier laws, which you admit didn't work. What's the point? That government tried to fix it and failed miserably, so the free market did? Sounds right to me.

And also, why on earth would companies need child labor abroad if they didn't need it anymore?

They didn't need it in the US anymore. Many other economies are not as well developed as we are.

The act passed because the local government laws were not working.

Fine. If they weren't working, then show an example from 1937, the year before the act passed.

You are.

That is an outright lie. I never said that this kind of thing never happened; I said that the free market had taken care of the problem 100 years ago, and it had.

This isn't a myth, like you said. It was real.

Then show me examples from 1937. If the act was needed in 1938, then there must have been instances of this in 1937. Show me.

One dollar is 100 cents. Ten hours a day workweek and getting a dollar for each day of work will give you a wage of...

Haven't you ever heard of inflation? Money was worth a lot more then than it is now. Here's an inflation calculator:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

The site doesn't say what year that was, but a linked page says the photos were taken between 1908 and 1912. To be generous to your side, let's assume it was 1912. Plug in the numbers, and what do you get?

What cost $1 in 1912 would cost $18.55 in 2002.

And that's without even looking at cost of living. Without things like electric bills, that $18.55 could go a pretty long way. That was actually pretty darn good wages!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
People working for the company. Not just for their own gain, joy, and profit.

So, who is working for their own gain, joy, and profit, and how are they not people?

It doesn't have to be in the constitution to be legal.

Yes, it does, at least on a Federal level. Read the 10th Amendment.

And that society is...Argentina?

How is Argentina a free market economy?

Prosperity for whom?

Everyone. The poor are much better off now than even the average person 40 years ago. See the "richest poor people" thread.

It no longer stands as an impediment in one given situation. It is still a right, one which others still have.

That just makes no sense. There is a difference between swining your fist in the air and swining it at someone's nose.

So, there are limikts to individual rights?

No, but there are ways rights can be waived or forfieted.

And when it is demonstrated that a persons rights are being violated by the exercise of another's rights, the latter mentioned rights don't actually exist?

No, by definition. You are quite incorrect in calling that a "right" to begin with.

So when minorities demonstrated that their hard won right to make a living was being nullified by the discrimination practiced by the majority of employers, the right to hire whomever they wanted was nullified.

No, it was oppressed. The employers had not done anything to cause direct harm to these people. Not employing someone is NOT causing them direct harm since employment is a VOLUNTARY arrangement.

Discrimination became illegal. A right that you don't have can't be violated.

I'm sure that was great comfort to the slaves...

What are you talking about?:confused: I didn't mention any rules improving society.[/b]

You said:

Wht you dont get is that in the commerce it does matter if "good" comes out of it cause the state has a big interest in healthy economy. All these rules an regs arent put in place for the fun of it. They arise as solutions to problems

I'm wanting to know precisely how, in quantitative terms, these rules and regulations resulted in a healthy economy.

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


It has more and more in recent decades, with measurable results. But the vast majority of this country has worked under a free market system, a system which is efficient and innovative enough to keep working even under the oppression it's experiencing now. We're still the country with the freest market, and we're still the country everyone else wants to come to, some of them literally dying to get here!

Working for the richest 5%.



False dichotomy. It's a free market that is being increasinly encroached upon by big government.

The five percent in question are the ones pulling the strings in government. You don't even know who it is that is scr*wing you.

The rest of which statement?

The poor tend to be overweight because processed sugar and fat are the most plentiful ingredients in cheap food. They do not learn good eating habits in the schools they are stuck in and cr*p food is far more plentiful than healthful food. The obesity paradox is a bitter irony. They are fat and mal nourished at the same time. Their weight is not an indication of propsperity. Things have changed since the 19th century.

If the employer is stupid enough to want to drive his business into the ground, which is what racial policies do, that's his own problem. We can avoid racist businesses. We can't avoid a racist government.

There is no basis for such an assumtion.

Discrimination takes many forms. Hiring is just one aspect. There are places which don't promote minorities. Places which keep them out of certain departments. Places which fail to enforce rules where certain employees are concerned.



So you claim, but it is exactly what you are supporting, whether you want to admit it or not.

And we end with a strawman. I am not supporting affirmative action.

Glory

[shanek]

Sorry; missed this post before:

Originally posted by toddjh
Just out of curiosity, what is your position on blackmail? Is that not also a voluntary agreement?

No, because it's made under duress.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
The ones that don't cloud the issue with facts.

So you're saying that a sixth-greade textbook gives you all the facts you need?

Man, you really need to read this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684818868/qid=1071120272//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/104-3065799-3108731?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


So why are you so supportive of the system that allows them to do this?

At least I know who the real enemy is.

The system is flawed. I want it changed. It's just that I want to make changes that are diametrically opposed to the ones you want to make.



No, everyone benefits from a free market. These people are lobbying the government because they want to try and benefit unfairly in ways that the market won't allow. That's why, for example, the RIAA is rigorously enforcing laws they railroaded through the government instead of adapting to profit in the changing times. Follow the money.

The free market would enable them to unfairly profit hand over fist.



I really want to make THAT blanket statement, because it clearly fits what we find.

Suit yourself. Watch it with that "we". I find things very different than you.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


Could you elucidate?

You did go to school didn't you? Read some history.

Glory

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
No, because it's made under duress.

You know, I've thought about this a lot before, and I just don't see it. If someone commits a crime, and you find out about it, it's perfectly ethical to report it to the authorities. If you can come up with an alternative that is better for both you and the other person, where's the duress? If they didn't want to have this information revealed, they shouldn't have done it in the first place (or at least shouldn't have gotten caught!).

Now, if you point a gun at someone and threaten to shoot them if they don't sign a contract, that is duress. But in the case of blackmail, the thing you're "threatening" the person with, reporting illegal activities to the authorities/public, is a perfectly legal and ethical thing to do. I fail to see how that is any different from all the other legal types of pressure you can bring to bear on a person to convince them to go along with you.

My answer, of course, is that it is not only acceptable but necessary for the person to report information about crimes to the authorities. Choosing not to do so for personal gain is contrary to the interests of society. That's a decidedly non-libertarian viewpoint, so I can't really see how hard-line libertarians justify it.

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
Working for the richest 5%.

Your complete unwillingness to even consider the point has been noted.

The five percent in question are the ones pulling the strings in government. You don't even know who it is that is scr*wing you.

When have I denied this? In fact, if you'll READ MY POSTS, you'll see how, for example, I chided the RIAA as one example of this. No, your point is EXACTLY the reason why we need to reign in big government&mdash;because, unlike the free market, it doesn't work for people like you and me. It works for those who can lobby and stuff campaign coffers.

The poor tend to be overweight because processed sugar and fat are the most plentiful ingredients in cheap food.

Which, before the last century or so, were very, very difficult to come by.

They do not learn good eating habits in the schools they are stuck in

Government schools, of course.

and cr*p food is far more plentiful than healthful food.

Mostly because of the farm subsidies. Look at how much sugar, and the stock for both sweeteners and feed for cattle etc. is subsidized, making those products cheaper, while fruits and vegetables actually have price supports placed on them, and controls to destroy surplus crops, increasing the prices at the grocery store. You don't have to have a degree in economics to know that when the price of one thing goes down while the price of another goes up, more people will buy the former than the latter.

The obesity paradox is a bitter irony. They are fat and mal nourished at the same time.

I never said there wasn't a problem with malnourishment, but that's not the same as starving. And it was starvation I am referring to. This is a completely new problem we're experiencing&mdash;one that, as problems go, is better to have than starvation, wouldn't you agree?

There is no basis for such an assumtion.

Well, if YOU say so...but many businesses, who found out the hard way, would disagree.

And we end with a strawman. I am not supporting affirmative action.

And we end with denial. Forcing racial "equity" in hiring practices, which is what you are advocating, IS a form of affirmative action.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
At least I know who the real enemy is.

:rolleyes:

The "enemy," as Pogo said, is us.

The system is flawed. I want it changed.

So do I. And the only way you can stop these people from running roughshod over us is to take that power away from government.

It's just that I want to make changes that are diametrically opposed to the ones you want to make.

And so you support the very policies that allow these people to wield power over others. Well, there's nothing like a good logical argument...

The free market would enable them to unfairly profit hand over fist.

How? The free market is what's made their older business model unprofitable! The free market has made it so much easier for independent labels to get their music out, or even for an artist to do it without any labels at all! And don't be fooled: with all their talk about "piracy," what they really want is to stop this competition that they don't know how to deal with.

So, how does that "enable them to unfairly profit hand over fist"?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
You did go to school didn't you? Read some history.

Your refusal to support your argument has been noted.

[shanek]

Originally posted by toddjh
You know, I've thought about this a lot before, and I just don't see it. If someone commits a crime, and you find out about it, it's perfectly ethical to report it to the authorities. If you can come up with an alternative that is better for both you and the other person, where's the duress?

That isn't blackmail as I usually think about it, anyway. But there is another word for this: obstruction of justice.

What about if someone has perfectly legal sex with someone else, the blackmailer takes pictures, and says he'll publish them if the money is not paid? No crime has been committed, but it could easily destroy the person.

My answer, of course, is that it is not only acceptable but necessary for the person to report information about crimes to the authorities. Choosing not to do so for personal gain is contrary to the interests of society.

Or you could look at it as simple obstruction of justice. You get at the plain truth without having to bring the whole "society" idiom into the picture.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
That isn't blackmail as I usually think about it, anyway. But there is another word for this: obstruction of justice.

[QUOTE][B]What about if someone has perfectly legal sex with someone else, the blackmailer takes pictures, and says he'll publish them if the money is not paid? No crime has been committed, but it could easily destroy the person.

If the photographer illegally invaded the person's privacy, then of course a crime has been committed. If not, then the person should've been more careful and it's own fault he had sex where a person could legally photograph him.

Either way, I fail to see the duress. Can you clarify? If "act A" (reporting the crime or releasing the photos) is legal, I really can't see the coersion involved with offering the person an alternative which he himself would prefer. How is giving someone a more attractive choice duress?

Or you could look at it as simple obstruction of justice. You get at the plain truth without having to bring the whole "society" idiom into the picture.

Ah, but does an individual have the responsibility to report information on crimes? If I see someone jaywalking, do I need to call the cops? What about putting something in a mailbox? Shoplifting? Threatening to hit someone? How serious does the crime have to be before I am legally obligated to report it?

I don't think that's a question you can answer without bringing society at large into the picture.

Jeremy

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek
And once the free market created enough wealth where they didn't have to do that anymore, they didn't have to do that anymore.

You find it perfectly acceptable to use children this way? Generally, people in this country don't find that acceptable. We consider it abuse.



Go for it. Even if it is a personal anecdote, it's better than what you've presented so far, which is nothing.

My grandmother worked sewing gloves in a factory for 10 hours a day from the age of 8 to 16.(1922 to 1938) She was paid by the peice. There were no benefits except the job itself. This was in New York. When the managers wanted them to work faster they would open the windows, in the winter, and close them in the summer. Occasionally, without notice, they would have to wait an extra week to be paid. She wwent to school twice a week. By the time she was 16 she had the equvalent of a third grade education. At 16 she moved on to being an operator at the phone company. They did the same thing with the windows but the pay was steady and she didn't risk mangling her hands which she had seen several people do.

Now, I don't anticipate you to be moved by this in any way. It is clear that your empathy, pity, and compassion begin and end with your own bottom line. I only offer it to as the example you asked for.

So, explain how the free market was benefitting my grandmother?

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek
So do I. And the only way you can stop these people from running roughshod over us is to take that power away from government.

Reshape government. Move away from profit over all else and focus on better distribution of wealth. Capitalism makes money really well but all the money goes to a few people and the rest of the country gets nothing.



And so you support the very policies that allow these people to wield power over others. Well, there's nothing like a good logical argument...

No, I am opposing your ideas. The only thing that could put us in a worse position then the one we are in would be laissez faire capitalism. There are no safeguards against abuses and fraud. Waste is built into the system. It rests entirely on how people should behave and how things should be while ignoring the lessons history and simple observation has taught about how people actually do behave and how things actually are.


How? The free market is what's made their older business model unprofitable! The free market has made it so much easier for independent labels to get their music out, or even for an artist to do it without any labels at all! And don't be fooled: with all their talk about "piracy," what they really want is to stop this competition that they don't know how to deal with.

It includes no safeguards against abuses. It doesn't consider the exploitation of people's desperation for a life saving drug to be an abuse. In a free market economy, the children of poor people will starve.

The recording industry is not representative of business in America. The same cutthroat, sink or swim mentality the free market would apply to it would be apllied to things people litterally can't live without. Food, medicine, elctricity, clothing, rent.

So, how does that "enable them to unfairly profit hand over fist"?

Record executives are not what I am worried about.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


Your refusal to support your argument has been noted.

Your rejection of facts is noted. You have already stated that you don't trust the sources that most of us rely on. You have refused to provide documentation for your claims. I'm not interested in jumping through your hoops so you can reject the reference. You don't believe in the same history as the rest of us? Fine. Not a problem for me.

Glory

[JAR]

Originally posted by Glory
Discrimination takes many forms. Hiring is just one aspect. There are places which don't promote minorities. Places which keep them out of certain departments. Places which fail to enforce rules where certain employees are concerned.
You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink it.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by corplinx


All I said was the employer has the right to select. Of course the potential employee has the right to refuse.
What you said was:
The true right is that of the proprietorof the cracker factory to select whom he deals with and employs.
My emphasis
Your assertion that only the proprietor's rights are true suggests that (potential) employees' rights are false and therefore they have no rights. That's what I was responding to.

[Tmy]

I have to agree with Glory. Affrimative action is not the issue here.

This thread is about businessess being able to hire who they want. Theres a misconception that companies HAVE TO have an AA program. That is false. By law they cant discriminate against a potential employee based on race, religion ect.. Thats it.

If they do have an AA program its either voluntary OR court order because they have been found to have illegally discriminated.

[shanek]

Originally posted by toddjh
Either way, I fail to see the duress. Can you clarify? If "act A" (reporting the crime or releasing the photos) is legal, I really can't see the coersion involved with offering the person an alternative which he himself would prefer. How is giving someone a more attractive choice duress?

Duress, according to the dictionary, is "constraint of choice by threat or coercion." So, how is this not duress?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
You find it perfectly acceptable to use children this way?

I find it perfectly acceptable to stop the use of children in this way...and that was something the free market accomplished where the government failed.

[personal insults and platitudes deleted]

Man, already Glory is going on about how I have no empathy or pity beyond a bottom line, the typical ad hominem of a big government bigot who has no support for an argument. I told corplinx your true colors would come out soon, and they did!

Thank you for demonstrating why no one here should take you seriously.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
Reshape government. Move away from profit over all else and focus on better distribution of wealth.

But that is the EXACT SAME SYSTEM that is allowing the problems you're complaining about! The "distribution of wealth" just keeps people stranded in poverty and removes some of their options for getting out of it.

Capitalism makes money really well but all the money goes to a few people and the rest of the country gets nothing.

That is just totally and completely untrue and shows nothing more than your staggering ignorance of economics.

No, I am opposing your ideas. The only thing that could put us in a worse position then the one we are in would be laissez faire capitalism.

No, that is about the only thing that can fix it.

There are no safeguards against abuses and fraud.

That just absolutely isn't true. Abuse and fraud would still be illegal. The only difference is that those who committed it would get more than justa slap on the wrist, which is all those Enron thieves got.

Waste is built into the system.

No, it isn't. The free market work to reduce waste as much as possible. Waste is expensive. That's why, for example, the lumber companies spent billions of dollars researching and developing things like laser-guided saws, polymers capable of extending board lengths, particle board, etc. It's all about reducing waste and getting the most out of each and every tree.

Your total ignorance of how things work is truly astounding.

It rests entirely on how people should behave and how things should be while ignoring the lessons history and simple observation has taught about how people actually do behave and how things actually are.

No, it rests entirely on how people do behave. Big government theories like yours rest entirely on how people should behave, at least once they're in government, and completely ignore how people do behave once they're given power.

The recording industry is not representative of business in America.

It is representative of how businesses use government.

[bThe same cutthroat, sink or swim mentality the free market would apply to it would be apllied to things people litterally can't live without. Food, medicine, elctricity, clothing, rent.[/b]

Learn how things work. As it is, you're only showing how ignorant you are and how willing you are to accept conclusions without having the information needed to evaluate them. I beg you, go to the Macroeconomics thread and learn how prices and wages are set in a free market.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
Your rejection of facts is noted.

You have provided no facts! I asked you to support your assertion and you REFUSED!

You have already stated that you don't trust the sources that most of us rely on.

"Most of us" do not rely on sixth grade textbooks, at least most of us who want a better idea of how things actually were.

You have refused to provide documentation for your claims.

They're YOUR claims! It's up to YOU to document and support them! Once again, the big government bigot tries to shift the burden of proof...

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
Duress, according to the dictionary, is "constraint of choice by threat or coercion." So, how is this not duress?

I would say that doing something which is entirely legal (reporting a crime to the authorities, or releasing legally-obtained photographs) is not a "threat" under that definition. To me, a threat implies an illegal or otherwise inappropriate activity.

To use a rather anachronistic example, if a woman "threatens" to break up with her boyfriend if he won't marry her, is that agreement made under duress? Does that invalidate the marriage contract?

Jeremy

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek

Because the employer/employee relationship is one of a voluntary agreement, which neither side should be forced into or out of.
That's kind of (but not exactly) what I was arguing.

No, it doesn't. Again, it's a voluntary arrangement. If I sell a car, but you just don't want to buy it, you are in no way impinging on my right to sell the car. Same if I try to sell you my labor. You still have a right to buy whatever car you want, or none at all.
Yes it does. Your analogy is not exactly appropriate here. Remember, Grammaton said, "No I'm saying that if I want to run a company that is staffed exclusively with Asians, I should have a right to that." There may be instances when ethnicity, gender, age and a whole host of other characteristics have a direct bearing on recruitment decisions, but choosing based on a particular set of characteristics (like being Asian) is not a right in and of itself. Further I'd argue that denying people the opportunity to be considered for a particular position on this basis is not only irrational—although irrationality in and of itself is not an issue as, for instance, people go with non-rational strategies like 'instinct' or 'gut-feeling'—but illegitimate, because it's denying an entire group of people equal consideration; the right to exchange their labour for fair compensation. It's saying that their labour is worth less than the equivalent labour of someone who is not a member of that group.

I just cannot make the above work at all logically. You're basically saying that a worker has no right to force an employer to hire him, but the employer should be forced to hire him anyway.
You probably carnt make it work because your paraphrasing is inaccurate. What I'm saying is that the employer has no right to decide that the labour of one person is worth less than the equivalent labour of another person based on factors which are wholly irrelevant to the position being sought.

And who are you to make that decision for the employer?
I am someone who is arguing these decisions in terms of rights, and particularly in terms of Lockean property rights.

Originally posted by Billy TK
But the dichotomy is that without legislation to check certain racist activities, it's unlikely that those racist activities would've disappeared of their own accord.

Originally posted by shanek
And how do you reach this conclusion?
From reading tons of rather turgid stuff on society, social structure and social change. I can give you a bibliography, but Durkheims work on suicide, Berger & Luckman's "Social construction of reality" (before anyone knee-jerks, it's not "pomo liberal arts anti-science nonsense", it's about the socialogy of knowledge and understanding society) and Gidden's structuration theory (he's written a book on it called "The constitution of society", but you're prolly better of with some kind of critique to simplify it) are good places to start :)

[The Don]

Originally posted by shanek

No, it isn't. The free market work to reduce waste as much as possible. Waste is expensive. That's why, for example, the lumber companies spent billions of dollars researching and developing things like laser-guided saws, polymers capable of extending board lengths, particle board, etc. It's all about reducing waste and getting the most out of each and every tree.

Your total ignorance of how things work is truly astounding.


But equally, any large corporation wastes enormous amounts of money because many of the senior executives work in their own self interest rather than that of the company.

Whole departments do "busy work" in order to maintain the size of an executive's empire. Sure, the owners of the company (be they private individuals or shareholders) should bring these individuals to book but the organsiation is too large, the vested interests too vested and the ability to cover up too well honed over years of experience.

Libertarianism is an excellent approach in theory but it's let down in practice by the indolence and corruption of human beings in the same way that socialism is let down by their greed and laziness.

Becuase unfettered large scale Libertarianism hasn't (to my knowledge - but please educate me) been implemented, it can still be discussed in its abstract "pure" for whereas external legislation HAS been implemented and its flaws are there for all to see.

[shanek]

Originally posted by toddjh
I would say that doing something which is entirely legal (reporting a crime to the authorities, or releasing legally-obtained photographs) is not a "threat" under that definition.

Even if doing so would drastically harm your relationships, your employment, etc.? Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's not a form of harm. And just because the person would be within his rights to release the information doesn't mean that the agreement is void of duress.

To use a rather anachronistic example, if a woman "threatens" to break up with her boyfriend if he won't marry her, is that agreement made under duress?

No, because she's talking about terminating a voluntary arrangement. Any thinking person can see that's not the same thing. Now, "Marry me or I'll show your boss and coworkers the pictures of you tied up in S&M gear with a broom handle up your butt" would be duress.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Yes it does. Your analogy is not exactly appropriate here. Remember, Grammaton said, "No I'm saying that if I want to run a company that is staffed exclusively with Asians, I should have a right to that."

And if I want every single car I own to be a Honda, I should have a right to that.

There may be instances when ethnicity, gender, age and a whole host of other characteristics have a direct bearing on recruitment decisions, but choosing based on a particular set of characteristics (like being Asian) is not a right in and of itself.

Why not?

illegitimate, because it's denying an entire group of people equal consideration;

And why do they have the "right" to FORCE you to that consideration?

the right to exchange their labour for fair compensation.

Again, the employer is not impinging on that right any more than I am impinging on Ford's right to sell cars. They're just not selling cars to me.

What I'm saying is that the employer has no right to decide that the labour of one person is worth less than the equivalent labour of another person based on factors which are wholly irrelevant to the position being sought.

First of all, you don't know that, because you don't know what's going on in the employer's head. Second of all, who if not the employer is the person who should be determining whose labor is worth what? He's the buyer! Maybe you can come up with all sorts of objective reasons why I'd be better off with a Ford than a Honda, but you still aren't in a position to force me to choose Ford, or even give Ford equal consideration.

From reading tons of rather turgid stuff on society, social structure and social change. I can give you a bibliography, but [snip][/B]

Why not just present your arguments?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
Even if doing so would drastically harm your relationships, your employment, etc.? Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's not a form of harm. And just because the person would be within his rights to release the information doesn't mean that the agreement is void of duress.

Then where does duress begin? This leads back to my (unanswered) question about how any of this is different from the various legal types of pressure you can bring to bear on a person. How much is too much? I fail to see why your distinction is anything but a matter of degree.

No, because she's talking about terminating a voluntary arrangement.

So? You just got done saying above that even a perfectly legal, ethical activity can cause harm. How is this any different? Withholding affection is widely recognized as being very harmful.

Any thinking person can see that's not the same thing. Now, "Marry me or I'll show your boss and coworkers the pictures of you tied up in S&M gear with a broom handle up your butt" would be duress.

So you keep saying. Again, I fail to see it as anything more than a matter of degree, which leaves you needing to draw the dividing line. Good luck with that.

Jeremy

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


And if I want every single car I own to be a Honda, I should have a right to that.
Irrelevant. Cars and people are different things.

Why not?
Because its illegitmate and therefore not a right. You could argue that certain rights allow you to commit illegitimate acts, but that doesn't mean that the commission of illegitimate acts is a right in and of itself. For instance, just because the arrangement of our freedoms via rights means you are able to steal a car or kill someone, but this doesn't mean that stealing a car or killing someone is a right.

And why do they have the "right" to FORCE you to that consideration?
Question begging; nowhere do I suggest that potential employers should be forced to follow this principle, in fact now you mention it, it'd practically impossible to take such a pro-active approach. What I'm suggesting is this is a "should" situation–although it might be reasonable to suggest penalties for people who do break the rule, such as there are penalties for breaking the rule of not killing people.

Again, the employer is not impinging on that right any more than I am impinging on Ford's right to sell cars. They're just not selling cars to me.
Remember, cars are not people; I chose not to buy Fiat because of design flaws which affect the whole range; for your analogy to work here you'd have to argue that there are flaws in a whole group of people which is related to the characteristic they share, which would be both a composition fallacy and the essence of bigotry. So the employer is impinging on the particular group in question's right to exchange their labour for fair compensation.

First of all, you don't know that, because you don't know what's going on in the employer's head.
We do though! We've defined this for our example!
Second of all, who if not the employer is the person who should be determining whose labor is worth what?
That thing about voluntary agreement? So in principle it's a joint activity between the buyer and seller.
He's the buyer! Maybe you can come up with all sorts of objective reasons why I'd be better off with a Ford than a Honda, but you still aren't in a position to force me to choose Ford, or even give Ford equal consideration.
Your car analogy is wholly not the same as deciding that the value of someone's labour is worth less to you because they belong to a specific group than the value of equivalent labour of someone who doesn't belong to that group, when the group membership in question is wholly irrelevant to the position in question.

Why not just present your arguments?
Do you want the five minute argument or the full hour? ;) Okay, I'll try and summarise. Basically it's to do with the complex relationship between society at micro levels (individuals, groups, communities, that kind of thing) and the macro level (society-everyone in a particular country for instance). Macro level events—such as technological change for instacne—affects the micro level (obviously), but not always in direct, obvious ways. To cut short a long explanation, here's an example of what I mean: the reason why people get married is the not the same as the reason why marriage is a social institution; the former is a micro level meaning to do with love and commitment and personal stuff, the other is a macro-level value about conformity, social coherence and preservation of society. So marriage continues to be preserved as an institution even though the reasons why it exists, and the reason why people choose it are completely different.

Similar with racism; at a social level racism has a useful function, and although this can vary from country to country, it's generally to do with things like economic benefits—cheap labour, that kind of thing— as well as social cohesion in terms of of for instance, having someone to blame in times of economic difficulties (these examples are by no means extensive or exclusive). At the micro level racism is about identity and in group/out group membership. So with those two elements feeding each other, change would've been slow and gradual if it happened at all, and this problem is further exacerbated when racist values become entrenched in cultural practice (such as conduct towards/expected of groups on the receiving end) and/or institutionalised (bound in law or in the practice of institutions like the legal and education systems).

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


I find it perfectly acceptable to stop the use of children in this way...and that was something the free market accomplished where the government failed.

[personal insults and platitudes deleted]

Man, already Glory is going on about how I have no empathy or pity beyond a bottom line, the typical ad hominem of a big government bigot who has no support for an argument. I told corplinx your true colors would come out soon, and they did!

Thank you for demonstrating why no one here should take you seriously.

Well, either you have none of those qualities or you are delusional. That is the conclusion I draw from what you have said.

Don't put the cart before the horse. I'm not saying you're wrong because you're a jerk which is an ad hominem argument. I said your argument is wrong in such a way as to indicate that you are a jerk. You reap what you sow.

Glory

[Gem]

Here's about child labor in 1930s:

http://newdeal.feri.org/survey/37a01.htm

When Helen was interviewed in the course of a survey in April 1936, she was working a fifty-two-hour week for $4.15, just under 8 cents an hour.

Oh I’m sorry, would you prefer 1937 instead of 1936?

Who is even at minimum wage and supporting a family? Most of the people making minimum wage are teenagers or single people living alone...and they don't stay at minimum wage for more than a year or two. Meanwhile, the minimum wage laws increase unemployment and force many other people out of work.

Support that with proof. You stay at minimum wage for less than 1-2 years? Where did you get that?

They're the same thing. Learn some economics. There's a whole thread on it.

So rich people can go fly around the world while certain people can’t even afford their phone bills? How does creating wealth in this instant increases living standards?

It's an indicator of food being plentiful, something that hasn't been the case until now. In fact, thanks to the free market, with the exception of the government-induced Great Depression we haven't had starvation in this country in 100 years.

Once again you bring up the great depression. The causes are still being debated, and I can come up with OTHER causes than the government one.

Nope. The minimum wage just forces people out of work. Check the Macroeconomics thread to see why.

Yes, but it raises the living standard for many who worked below minimum wage before.

Ah yes, the oft-refuted "wage gap." Point to the increasing gap and pretend it's a problem while ignoring the fact that the standard of living for the poorest Americans is increasing right along with it.

You're pulling out all of the same old long-refuted Socialist tricks. We've seen them before here many, many times.

Oft refuted? Provide evidence, please. And tell me how poor's salary increasing 100 dollars a year while the richest increases some 100k a year. THAT’S what “us socialists” are so angry about. That people create more wealth for the rich than poor. That makes a poor democracy. That makes the rich able to BUY government.

They didn't need it in the US anymore. Many other economies are not as well developed as we are.

Yes! Let NIKE hire children in Pakistan to create wealth!

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/15/soccer.poverty/

Let’s export exploitation. Pay em 60cents on hour and sell the soccer balls $50. I’ll let these facts speak for themselves.
/You did talk about earlier laws, which you admit didn't work. What's the point? That government tried to fix it and failed miserably, so the free market did? Sounds right to me./

Sounds wrong to me. They failed because the free market businesses were too powerful. Because your free market government was too weak, businesses could go on and take advantage of people economically, see child labor. See above for proof the free market didn’t solve child labor.

That is an outright lie. I never said that this kind of thing never happened; I said that the free market had taken care of the problem 100 years ago, and it had.
And as I have shown, the free market kept exploiting children until 1936. The free market kept using them for as long as they could. And they started doing so again in third world countries. In other words: free market will keep exploiting as long as they can.

Haven't you ever heard of inflation? Money was worth a lot more then than it is now. Here's an inflation calculator:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

The site doesn't say what year that was, but a linked page says the photos were taken between 1908 and 1912. To be generous to your side, let's assume it was 1912. Plug in the numbers, and what do you get?

What cost $1 in 1912 would cost $18.55 in 2002.

And that's without even looking at cost of living. Without things like electric bills, that $18.55 could go a pretty long way. That was actually pretty darn good wages!

Yes I heard of inflation. Let’s do the math
18 dollars a day for an 8 hour day of work. That’s $3 dollars on hour. And you aren’t looking at the cost of living: like the company owned rents and food store, who had a monopoly. (I know what you’re going to say here: Anybody could have opened another store if they wanted to. FALSE. They COULDN’T because of PROPERTY laws. If the owner of the mill owns the property, he can DENY you opening up a food store.)

And if it was such a damn good wage, why did entire families have to work?

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/about.htm

Entire families were hired, the men for heavy labor and the women and children for lighter work. Work days typically ran from dawn to sunset, with longer hours in winter, resulting in a 68-72 hour workweek. Many families also lived in company owned houses in company owned villages and were often paid with overpriced goods from the company store. Thus they lived a life entirely dominated by their employers.

They do not learn good eating habits in the schools they are stuck in

Government schools, of course.

Now this just shows what you really are. The free market doesn’t provide education, it provides low paying jobs for children. Today in America some child labor is good, like corplinx’s story. Those are okay. I’m talking about late 19th and early 20th century America. Look in third world countries too. Businesses provides them with low paying jobs, not education. In America it wasn’t the same thing. The government provided SOME education. The free market provides education only to those who could afford, screw you if you couldn’t pay. In other others: The free market forces people without an education.

Yeah, public schools are flawed, but turning it to the free market and denying education to the poor is NOT an option worth considering.

I don’t expect you to change your mind. I remember how long it took you to admit there was caffeine in chocolate.

Gem

Edited to add:
I'm not saying you're wrong because you're a jerk which is an ad hominem argument. I said your argument is wrong in such a way as to indicate that you are a jerk.

This is exactly what I think. Thanks for putting my thoughts into words, Glory.

[shanek]

Originally posted by toddjh
Then where does duress begin?

Duress begins when someone threatens a direct action against someone that would cause them harm or embarassment, regardless of whether or not either action is legal.

Withholding affection is widely recognized as being very harmful.

You're talking about someone leaving a voluntary relationship. Not even close to the same thing.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Irrelevant. Cars and people are different things.

Not in the sense that they are markets. The only difference is, cars are a good, labor is a service.

Because its illegitmate and therefore not a right.

Circular reasoning.

Question begging; nowhere do I suggest that potential employers should be forced to follow this principle,

That is the natural consequence of what you are advocating.

Remember, cars are not people;

Again, that's only the difference between a good and a service. Cars are made and sold by people, labor provided by people. They are, for all pracitcal purposes, equivalent in market aspects.

I chose not to buy Fiat because of design flaws which affect the whole range; for your analogy to work here you'd have to argue that there are flaws in a whole group of people which is related to the characteristic they share, which would be both a composition fallacy and the essence of bigotry.

Not at all. People with very little job experience, or whose experience shows them moving from one job to another in a matter of months or even weeks, does show a flaw with that particular group of people. That is neither fallacious nor bigoted.

What if you just don't want to buy a Volvo because they're ugly cars?

We do though! We've defined this for our example!

Sorry, you don't get to do that. We're talking about actions, not intentions. You don't get to assume your conclusion. Bad skeptic!

That thing about voluntary agreement? So in principle it's a joint activity between the buyer and seller.

But the seller should have no more say in this than the buyer. The worker is providing the supply side and has determined a price level (wage) at or above which he will provide his service (labor). The buyer (employer) is providing the demand side and has determined a price level (wage) above which he will not consider employing the person. If the buyer does not think the person's level of service rises to the demanded price FOR WHATEVER REASON, he has every right to refuse to establish the relationship, just as the seller has the right to refuse the relationship if he thinks his service is worth more than the price being proposed by the buyer.

What about this escapes you?

To cut short a long explanation, here's an example of what I mean: the reason why people get married is the not the same as the reason why marriage is a social institution; the former is a micro level meaning to do with love and commitment and personal stuff, the other is a macro-level value about conformity, social coherence and preservation of society. So marriage continues to be preserved as an institution even though the reasons why it exists, and the reason why people choose it are completely different.

So, to you, conformity and social coherence are things to be mandated by force?

Similar with racism; at a social level racism has a useful function, and although this can vary from country to country, it's generally to do with things like economic benefits—cheap labour, that kind of thing— as well as social cohesion in terms of of for instance, having someone to blame in times of economic difficulties (these examples are by no means extensive or exclusive).

Except that it obviously didn't work out that way, not in the US at least. And it's bogus on the micro level, too, as many people&mdash;even the ones not directly affected by it&mdash;are unwilling to deal with people and companies that espouse racist attitudes or policies. The whole Denny's situation, for example, was resolved not by the lawsuits but by the negative public outcry.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
Well, either you have none of those qualities or you are delusional. That is the conclusion I draw from what you have said.

Thank you for admitting that you do not accept the possibility that you could be wrong. At least you're honest about being pigheaded.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
Oh I’m sorry, would you prefer 1937 instead of 1936?

Doesn't matter; either way, you still have neglected the concept of inflation and the fact that we were in the Great Depression at the time and people were lucky to have jobs at all. 8&cent; in 1936 is over a dollar in 2002 dollars, and again, consider the depression and the dearth of available jobs at the time.

Support that with proof.

Why? You don't. But here it is anyway. Here's a good starting point, fully sourced:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap3.html

You stay at minimum wage for less than 1-2 years? Where did you get that?

Pretty much anywhere that has analyzed the figures has come to this conclusion. Look here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html

So rich people can go fly around the world while certain people can’t even afford their phone bills? How does creating wealth in this instant increases living standards?

Go read the thread. I'm sick and tired of repeating myself, especially when I took hours of my personal time to transcribe the lectures.

Once again you bring up the great depression. The causes are still being debated, and I can come up with OTHER causes than the government one.

Okay, question: Why was Ludwig von Mises the only one to successfully predict the GD?

Yes, but it raises the living standard for many who worked below minimum wage before.

How?

Oft refuted? Provide evidence, please.

Check pretty much any thread started by Malachi151.

And tell me how poor's salary increasing 100 dollars a year while the richest increases some 100k a year. THAT’S what “us socialists” are so angry about.

Yeah, you just scream "unfair! Unfair!" while ignoring the point that the poor person is better off than he was before.

That makes the rich able to BUY government.

No, government having the power in the first place makes the rich able to buy government. As P.J. O'Rourke said, once you give the politicians the power over buying and selling, the first things bought and sold are politicians.

Yes! Let NIKE hire children in Pakistan to create wealth!

Trashed this too in another thread. Again, this is based on misunderstanding how economics works and comparing the standards in developing economies to that of the US.

Let’s export exploitation.

Thanks to that "exploitation," people there for the first time have the ability to buy a car and be virtually guaranteed of three healthy meals a day.

Pay em 60cents on hour and sell the soccer balls $50. I’ll let these facts speak for themselves.

But only the facts you want in, apparently.

And as I have shown, the free market kept exploiting children until 1936.

You have shown nothing of the kind. You have only shown your ignorance of economics and your inability to properly compare two different economic times.

And you aren’t looking at the cost of living: like the company owned rents and food store, who had a monopoly. (I know what you’re going to say here: Anybody could have opened another store if they wanted to. FALSE. They COULDN’T because of PROPERTY laws.

In other words, because of the government.

And if it was such a damn good wage, why did entire families have to work?

Again, you're trying to compare it to today, a much more developed time. When before then did entire families NOT have to work? We only enjoy this wealth because we stand on their shoulders.

The free market doesn’t provide education,

Yes, it does, and to claim otherwise is just completely ridicuous. In fact, the free market is doing a LOT better at education than the government is!

The free market provides education only to those who could afford, screw you if you couldn’t pay.

That just isn't true. The free market provided it to whomever needed it. The poorer didn't need education because it really didn't do them much good at the time; there wasn't the wealth or the opportunity to utilize it. Again, you're comparing then to now, a time at which we have this wealth again because we stand on their shoulders.

Yeah, public schools are flawed, but turning it to the free market and denying education to the poor is NOT an option worth considering.

Thank you for admitting your blatant bias.

I don’t expect you to change your mind. I remember how long it took you to admit there was caffeine in chocolate.

Yes, I was reluctant to accept the word of marketing materials over a peer-reviewed scientific examination; I required another peer-reviewed scientific examination. The STUPID thing is how many of you people think there is something WRONG with that!

[Glory]

Originally posted by shanek


But that is the EXACT SAME SYSTEM that is allowing the problems you're complaining about! The "distribution of wealth" just keeps people stranded in poverty and removes some of their options for getting out of it.

You are completely deluded. Refraining from learning anything about what is going on in the world in favour of fairy tales spun by propagandists will do that to a person.


That is just totally and completely untrue and shows nothing more than your staggering ignorance of economics.

No, you are wrong.



No, that is about the only thing that can fix it.

Like it fixed Argentina?



That just absolutely isn't true. Abuse and fraud would still be illegal. The only difference is that those who committed it would get more than justa slap on the wrist, which is all those Enron thieves got.

Funny you should mention that grand experiment in Laissez Faire economics. Enron was the great libertarian microcosm. It was going to show the world how Laissez Faire economics was the way to prosperity for all. It worked out great didn't it? Ken Lay wasn't punished because one cannot break rules when there are no rules. The current rules against abuses are enforced by the government and are the result of government regulation. Without that regulation you get Enron, Argentina, higher cable tv prices and California's energy crisis. Lets here it for deregulation! It has made Ken Lay a very wealthy man.



No, it isn't. The free market work to reduce waste as much as possible. Waste is expensive. That's why, for example, the lumber companies spent billions of dollars researching and developing things like laser-guided saws, polymers capable of extending board lengths, particle board, etc. It's all about reducing waste and getting the most out of each and every tree.

When you put companies in competition with each other, one side is going to have product that goes unsold, in other words it is wasted. This is the mechanism which provides consumers with choices. There must be more available than the consumers can use. Some products require too high an investment to warrant the risk of being outbid. Electricity is like this particularly as it cannot be stored in any large scale way. Either it is used when it is generated or it is gone.

Your total ignorance of how things work is truly astounding.

The level of your denial is staggering.

No, it rests entirely on how people do behave. Big government theories like yours rest entirely on how people should behave, at least once they're in government, and completely ignore how people do behave once they're given power.

Case in point.

It is representative of how businesses use government.

It is a unique industry and, as such, is representative only of itself.

Learn how things work. As it is, you're only showing how ignorant you are and how willing you are to accept conclusions without having the information needed to evaluate them. I beg you, go to the Macroeconomics thread and learn how prices and wages are set in a free market.

No thanks. I have life. I don't need to bother with nonsense.

Glory

[Gem]

Ok, I give up.

I have shown that the 12 hours 10 cents on hour isn't a myth, and I don't want to get anymore of Shanek's revisionist history.

It's appaling what the world has come to...

Gem

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek
Not in the sense that they are markets. The only difference is, cars are a good, labor is a service.
Like I said, irrelevant; we're not talking about markets, we're talking about rights.

Circular reasoning.
Wrong.

That is the natural consequence of what you are advocating.
"Natural" consequence? Still question begging.

Again, that's only the difference between a good and a service. Cars are made and sold by people, labor provided by people. They are, for all pracitcal purposes, equivalent in market aspects.
Still irrelevant, for reasons outlined above.

Not at all. People with very little job experience, or whose experience shows them moving from one job to another in a matter of months or even weeks, does show a flaw with that particular group of people. That is neither fallacious nor bigoted.
And neither is it relevant; I've already acknowledged this.

What if you just don't want to buy a Volvo because they're ugly cars?
Irrelevant.

Sorry, you don't get to do that. We're talking about actions, not intentions. You don't get to assume your conclusion. Bad skeptic!
Bad shanek for not paying attention! We're talking about intentions here.

But the seller should have no more say in this than the buyer.
This is not being contested. Please pay attention.
The worker is providing the supply side and has determined a price level (wage) at or above which he will provide his service (labor). The buyer (employer) is providing the demand side and has determined a price level (wage) above which he will not consider employing the person. If the buyer does not think the person's level of service rises to the demanded price FOR WHATEVER REASON, he has every right to refuse to establish the relationship, just as the seller has the right to refuse the relationship if he thinks his service is worth more than the price being proposed by the buyer.
This is not being contested. What is being contested is whether the employer has the right to decide whether the value of the labour offered by an individual is worth any less than the equivalent labour offered by another individual because that first individual shares a group characteristic which has no bearing on the labour they offer. I hope that has clarified the terms of the argument for you. If you wish to argue about something else, you are more than welcome to do so, and I will respond as I see fit.

What about this escapes you?
Irony. Wow.

So, to you, conformity and social coherence are things to be mandated by force?
Oh please don't tell me you're heading down the road to libertarian free will... It would be more accurate to say that conformity and social coherence are mandated by force, albeit it doesn't deny the opportunity for voluntary conformance, and force is typically manifested only after a person has committed

Except that it obviously didn't work out that way, not in the US at least.
No migrant labour, "blaming" and institutionalised racism? Okay. Like I said, the examples I gave were neither extensive nor exclusive.
And it's bogus on the micro level, too, as many people&mdash;even the ones not directly affected by it&mdash;are unwilling to deal with people and companies that espouse racist attitudes or policies.
Compositional fallacy, as many obviously people are willing to deal with racist people and companies, and also your statement implies a clear differentiation between racists and non-racists, when in truth it's more complex. And you're question-begging again.
The whole Denny's situation, for example, was resolved not by the lawsuits but by the negative public outcry.
This little factoid refers to what exactly?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glory
You are completely deluded. Refraining from learning anything about what is going on in the world in favour of fairy tales spun by propagandists will do that to a person.

Blind assertion with absolutely no information presented to back up the argument...typical.

No, you are wrong.

Well, if YOU say so...

Like it fixed Argentina?

Again, how was Argentina a free market? Argentina's economy collapsed because of their government's monetary policy.

Funny you should mention that grand experiment in Laissez Faire economics.

That was NOT laissez-faire economics.

Enron was the great libertarian microcosm.

Libertarians say that these clowns should be thrown in jail and have their assets siezed to pay back everyone they defrauded. Your pathetic strawman does not work here.

Ken Lay wasn't punished because one cannot break rules when there are no rules.

There are plenty of rules; that's why the SEC is there...and it failed miserably. It failed because the issue was put in the hands of a political big government organization instead of the justice system where it belongs.

The current rules against abuses are enforced by the government and are the result of government regulation. Without that regulation you get Enron,

Enron happened with all of that regulation.

Argentina,

Again, this was bad monetary policy. Learn some economics.

higher cable tv prices

That's because cable is a government-sponsored monopoly. Look at the digital satellite industry, which enjoys no such protection, and how much lower the prices are there.

and California's energy crisis.

California's energy crisis happened because GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS prevented the building of new power plants and the importing of power from out of state and because other GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS prevented the power companies from passing on the high costs that resulted to the consumers. No one who knows anything about economics would have expected any other result.

When you put companies in competition with each other, one side is going to have product that goes unsold, in other words it is wasted.

That is just absolutely not true. Does Pepsi go unsold because it is in competition with Coca-Cola? I don't think so.

No thanks. I have life. I don't need to bother with nonsense.

"Nonsense..." sheesh! Your complete refusal to learn has been noted.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Like I said, irrelevant; we're not talking about markets, we're talking about rights.

We are talking about the rights people have in the job market. It is very relevant.

Wrong.

No, right. Your argument:

Because its illegitmate and therefore not a right.

is the precise thing you were concluding. Therefore, it's circular. It's also begging the question as well.

"Natural" consequence? Still question begging.

No, I am taking your argument to its logical conclusion. That's NOT begging the question.

Still irrelevant, for reasons outlined above.

Still completely relevant, for reasons outlined above.

And neither is it relevant; I've already acknowledged this.

You did not account for it in your argument.

Irrelevant.

No, it's quite relevant.

Okay, since you're completely bent on avoiding this one example, let's try one with a service and not a good: My car needs to be fixed. Do I or do I not have the right to choose whatever mechanic I want to fix it, based on whatever criteria I want to use?

Bad shanek for not paying attention! We're talking about intentions here.

No, we're talking about actions here. Not hiring someone is an action. Their intention is an assumption that you're making.

This is not being contested.

Yes, it is! That is PRECISELY what's being contested!

Okay, let me ask you this: Should a potential employee be able to choose not to take a job because the supervisor is black?

I will not discuss this with you any more until you answer my questions.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


We are talking about the rights people have in the job market. It is very relevant.
Cars don't have rights. That's why it's not relevant.

No, right. Your argument:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because its illegitmate and therefore not a right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is the precise thing you were concluding. Therefore, it's circular. It's also begging the question as well.
It's not circular, and it's not question begging! Rights cannot be illegitimate! If they are, then they're not rights! This is basic stuff...

No, I am taking your argument to its logical conclusion. That's NOT begging the question.
Yes it is, because of your assumption about use of force. As I've acknowledged, there is a force element, but in principle and practice, that could only be incurred after someone's rights have been infringed. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with all rights.

[Still completely relevant, for reasons outlined above.
Nope, still irrelevant. Don't forget, cars are not people; cars don't have rights.

You did not account for it in your argument.
Yes I did. It's there in my response to Grammatron.

No, it's quite relevant.

Okay, since you're completely bent on avoiding this one example,
Because it's irrelevant! We're not talking about cars, we're talking about people!
let's try one with a service and not a good: My car needs to be fixed. Do I or do I not have the right to choose whatever mechanic I want to fix it, based on whatever criteria I want to use?
Many questions fallacy.

No, we're talking about actions here. Not hiring someone is an action. Their intention is an assumption that you're making.
Yes! We've assumed the intention for the purpose of the argument!

Yes, it is! That is PRECISELY what's being contested!
No it's not! The argument is about whether employers have a right to be racist! Why are you unable to acknowledge this?

Okay, let me ask you this: Should a potential employee be able to choose not to take a job because the supervisor is black?

I will not discuss this with you any more until you answer my questions.
Well, as we're arguing over what the subject of the argument actually is, then the only answer I can give is–is that a promise? :)

[JAR]

Originally posted by BillyTK
[snip]The argument is about whether employers have a right to be racist![snip]
Do you think an employer should have a right to be racist? I do.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Cars don't have rights.

But the people who make them do. Just like labor itself doesn't have rights, but the people who provide the labor do.

That's why it's not relevant.

That's why it IS relevant.

It's not circular, and it's not question begging! Rights cannot be illegitimate! If they are, then they're not rights! This is basic stuff...

But again, you're assuming that the legitimacy of the activity is in question (meaning it is not a right)...but you have yet to support that! You haven't provided anything as to WHY it is illegitimate and therefore not a right! You're just ASSUMING it's illegitimate!

Yes it is, because of your assumption about use of force.

It's not an assumption. EVERY GOVERNMENT PROGRAM is backed up by force. Sooner or later, it's backed up by men with guns.

Nope, still irrelevant. Don't forget, cars are not people; cars don't have rights.

And labor is not people; labor doesn't have rights.

Many questions fallacy.

"Many questions fallacy"? TWO questions count as a "many questions fallacy"? Especially when the second question was made to take away your reason for avoiding the first question?

Your steadfast refusal to answer basic, direct questions is obvious.

Yes! We've assumed the intention for the purpose of the argument!

No, you're proposing a method of dealing with those who have the intention by assuming all of those who take such an action have that intention!

No it's not! The argument is about whether employers have a right to be racist!

While, apparently, considering that the employees certainly do have a right to be racist! That's why the idea that the seller (the prospective employee) should have more of a say in whether or not the deal goes down than the buyer (the prospective employer) is very much what you're contesting!

Now, will you please stop avoiding the questions?

[Frank Newgent]

About the conversation between BillyTK and shanek concerning free markets and individual rights: sounds to me as though Billy TK might be describing the clean exterior and shanek the murky interior of this confrontation.

Anticipating you, BillyTK, I know: individualism is simply a narrative generated by the cultural conditions of capitalism. ;)

And it never needs ironing... (http://www.officialtomwaits.com/music/m_sc_lyr.htm#Step_Right_Up)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek
But the people who make them do. Just like labor itself doesn't have rights, but the people who provide the labor do.
That is precisely my point as to why your car example was not relevant!
But again, you're assuming that the legitimacy of the activity is in question
For the purpose of the argument it is in question, otherwise there is no argument. Why carnt you understand that?
(meaning it is not a right)...but you have yet to support that! You haven't provided anything as to WHY it is illegitimate and therefore not a right! You're just ASSUMING it's illegitimate!
I explained that here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31964&perpage=40&pagenumber=5#post1870226043).

It's not an assumption. EVERY GOVERNMENT PROGRAM is backed up by force. Sooner or later, it's backed up by men with guns.
That's why I accused you of question-begging; I just knew you were going to drag "the gubmint" into this somehow. But whatever, all rights imply use of force at some point to ensure those rights, without it rights go out the window, including property rights.

And labor is not people; labor doesn't have rights.
:rolleyes:I've never suggested it does.


"Many questions fallacy"? TWO questions count as a "many questions fallacy"? Especially when the second question was made to take away your reason for avoiding the first question?
A many questions fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#manyq) is commited when someone demands a simple answer to a complex question. Your first question presumes a simple yes/no response when the question itself is far more complex.

Your steadfast refusal to answer basic, direct questions is obvious.
Yeah, because your "basic, direct questions" are pants.

No, you're proposing a method of dealing with those who have the intention by assuming all of those who take such an action have that intention!
No such assumption has been made! Go and read at my first post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31964&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post1870224077)!

While, apparently, considering that the employees certainly do have a right to be racist!
My assumption is that you've not actually been reading what I've posted, and instead you're choosing tasty bits to knee-jerk to. I've dealt with this in my first post.

That's why the idea that the seller (the prospective employee) should have more of a say in whether or not the deal goes down than the buyer (the prospective employer) is very much what you're contesting!
No it's not! That's the position you keep attributing to me for the purpose of your argument! Why do you keep doing that?
Now, will you please stop avoiding the questions?

So which part of "I will not discuss this with you any more until you answer my questions." didn't you mean?

Edited for civility. Oh yes, that bad!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
About the conversation between BillyTK and shanek concerning free markets and individual rights: sounds to me as though Billy TK might be describing the clean exterior and shanek the murky interior of this confrontation.
Hey, I can do murky! I just get annoyed when someone tries to railroad me from one topic to another.

Anticipating you, BillyTK, I know: individualism is simply a narrative generated by the cultural conditions of capitalism. ;)
And it never needs ironing... (http://www.officialtomwaits.com/music/m_sc_lyr.htm#Step_Right_Up)
Y'bugger! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869932328#post1869932328) :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK

That is precisely my point as to why your car example was not relevant!

It is exactly as relevant to people making cars as it is to people providing labor.

For the purpose of the argument it is in question, otherwise there is no argument. Why carnt you understand that?

No, you need to show how you CONCLUDE that! Why can't you understand that?

I explained that here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31964&perpage=40&pagenumber=5#post1870226043).

No, you didn't. You just showed that you were assuming it as a given.

I just knew you were going to drag "the gubmint" into this somehow.

YOU are the one dragging in the government! YOU want the government to enforce the "right" of people to force employers to hire them against their will!

But whatever, all rights imply use of force at some point to ensure those rights, without it rights go out the window, including property rights.

Why won't you answer my questions dealing with the issue of whether or not they have this "right" in the first place?

:rolleyes:I've never suggested it does.

And yet, somehow that logic does apply to cars...Why? Just because you want it to? Just because you're trying to avoid the question?

Yeah, because your "basic, direct questions" are pants.

No, they're direct and relevant. You just don't want to answer them because it refutes your entire argument.

So which part of "I will not discuss this with you any more until you answer my questions." didn't you mean?

I'm trying to GET you to answer the questions! Which you still refuse to do.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek
It is exactly as relevant to people making cars as it is to people providing labor.
But you weren't talking about people making cars; you were talking about buying cars, for instance:
And if I want every single car I own to be a Honda, I should have a right to that.
Maybe you can come up with all sorts of objective reasons why I'd be better off with a Ford than a Honda, but you still aren't in a position to force me to choose Ford, or even give Ford equal consideration
What if you just don't want to buy a Volvo because they're ugly cars?


No, you need to show how you CONCLUDE that! Why can't you understand that?
Let's run through this one more time. My initial post was addressing whether an employer has the right to be racist. As such I don't need to show how I conclude that the employer is being racist or not because it's given as the premise! Why carnt you understand that?

No, you didn't. You just showed that you were assuming it as a given.
Wrong again. Here, I'll quote you the relevant bit:
[...]Further I'd argue that denying people the opportunity to be considered for a particular position on this basis is not only irrational—although irrationality in and of itself is not an issue as, for instance, people go with non-rational strategies like 'instinct' or 'gut-feeling'—but illegitimate, because it's denying an entire group of people equal consideration; the right to exchange their labour for fair compensation. It's saying that their labour is worth less than the equivalent labour of someone who is not a member of that group.


YOU are the one dragging in the government! YOU want the government to enforce the "right" of people to force employers to hire them against their will!
*sighs* show me where I do that.

Why won't you answer my questions dealing with the issue of whether or not they have this "right" in the first place?
When you come up with some, I'll do that.

And yet, somehow that logic does apply to cars...
Cars do have rights then? :eek:

No, they're direct and relevant.
But mostly fallacious.
You just don't want to answer them because it refutes your entire argument.
They don't even come close to my argument. You've yet to demonstrate any understanding of what my argument is!

I'm trying to GET you to answer the questions! Which you still refuse to do.
So when you said "I will not discuss this with you any more until you answer my questions." you didn't actually mean it? That's kind of not fair. :)

[Troll]

Short and to the point answer...... Yes it is okay

Reason?

Because I can hire anyone I think will do the job right and for my company. If I ran a nude magazine why would I hire a fat hairy guy to sell it when a scantilly clad young buxom woman would get better results?

Not discrimination, smart business

[Tmy]

You dont have a right to buy Hondas...........if those Hondas were made in Cuba.:p

[RPG Advocate]

I think the problem of whether or the right not be discriminated against when seeking employment is legitimate has nothing to do with the intricacies of the labor market. The real problem is that the right to protection from discrimination isn't a "discrete right". In order for a right to have real legitimacy, you have to be able to reasonably define when that right has been violated, to the exclusion of possible legitimate causes.

The mere existence of the right to protection from discrimination creates uncertainty in the minds of employers that they may have to justify every hiring decision, and that even if they have proper justification, they may not be believed if a lawsuit is filed. In the end, employers can be held liable for a sort of "thoughtcrime".

Consider the similar situation of Batson¹ claims in criminal trials (or appeals). The scheme the Supreme Court came up with to address the problem of race-based peremptory challenges is wacky. It requires the defendant claiming race-based jury selection to make a prima facie case, and then the prosecutor to rebut the allegations post hoc. The result is that if a proesecutor strikes a significant number of black jurors with no racist intent, she leaves herself open to accusations that could be completely rebutted only if the judge knows exactly what the prosecutor was thinking during jury selection. It's the same way with discriminatory hiring claims.

The only way to really make progress in combatting disciminatory practices is to make it socially unacceptable, exerting negative pressure on those who practice discrimination, and by defining discrete rights that fight discimination indirectly.

Note: Even if we could magically know every employer's thoughts, I would still not be in favor of anti-discimination laws, since it would force a company to use their resources in a manner contrary to its wishes.

_________________

¹ Batson v. Kentucky - 476 U.S. 79 (1986)

[Earthborn]

The mere existence of the right to protection from discrimination creates uncertainty in the minds of employers that they may have to justify every hiring decision, and that even if they have proper justification, they may not be believed if a lawsuit is filed. In the end, employers can be held liable for a sort of "thoughtcrime".Not necessarily! (http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/objectify.txt)The only way to really make progress in combatting disciminatory practices is to make it socially unacceptable, exerting negative pressure on those who practice discrimination, and by defining discrete rights that fight discimination indirectly.Not necessarily! (http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/objectify.txt)Even if we could magically know every employer's thoughts, I would still not be in favor of anti-discimination laws, since it would force a company to use their resources in a manner contrary to its wishes.Not necessarily! (http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/objectify.txt)

Come on, people! How often do I need to link to this thing (http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/objectify.txt) before someone starts reading it?There is something that can be done about it. It's very simple. We should make
the decision making objective. It is very simple really, once you get the idea.We can end discrimination, once and for all. No changing of people's minds, no ignoring human biases, no affirmative action, heck: not necessarily any government intervention either! (http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/objectify.txt)

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
But you weren't talking about people making cars; you were talking about buying cars,

In market economics, there is no logical difference between people making cars and others buying them, and people providing labor and others buying it.

I am talking about people buying cars. You are talking about people BUYING LABOR. The employer is the purchaser of labor just as I am the purchaser of my car. The car makers provide the cars, just as the prospective employees provide the labor. It matches perfectly, it is logically the same, and you have no basis for calling the relationship irrelevant.

Let's run through this one more time. My initial post was addressing whether an employer has the right to be racist.

And the employer is the buyer.

As such I don't need to show how I conclude that the employer is being racist or not because it's given as the premise! Why carnt you understand that?

But you're talking about an action, not an intent! Why can't YOU understand THAT??? Not hiring someone because they're black is a racist ACTION. You're ASSUMING their intent by taking that action!

Wrong again. Here, I'll quote you the relevant bit:

And I responded to that bit with questions that you're refusing to answer, questions that go right to the heart of your conclusion. By avoiding those questions, you are making it clear that this is all an ASSUMPTION on your part and you don't want to think it through logically.

When you come up with some, I'll do that.

I have come up with several!!!!

Cars do have rights then? :eek:

CAR MAKERS HAVE RIGHTS!!!! WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THIS??????

Car is to Labor
as
Employee is to Car Maker

Why do you refuse to grasp this?

They don't even come close to my argument.

Yes, they do! THEY GO RIGHT TO THE HEART OF IT!!!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
You dont have a right to buy Hondas...........if those Hondas were made in Cuba.:p

No, I actually do have that right; it's just that my right to do so is being oppressed.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek
THEY GO RIGHT TO THE HEART OF IT!!!

Dude, some people don't want to see it.

(Still thumbing throught this thread, so I'll get back to you.)

[shanek]

Okay, it looks like i'm going to have to get Claussian here.

BillyTK, answer these questions:

Does a prospective employee have the right to turn down an offer of employment solely because the boss is black?
Aside from the fact that one is a good and one is a service, what, in a market context, is the difference between cars and labor?
Do I have the right to discriminate against any automobile dealer or brand for whatever reason I choose?
Do I have the right to discriminate against automobile mechanics when I need my car repaired for whatever reason I choose?
Should the seller of labor have more rights than the buyer?
Are the rights people have in the job market different than the rights they have in other markets?

[Tmy]

Well Shane both have empoyer and employee can be bigots. But that comes with a price. basically if your a bigot then you cant play the commerce game. The employee can say "no I dont want to work for a white boss". Fine, he doesnt get the job. He can go home and be a bigot all he wants. The employer, he can say 'No I dont want to hire a catholic" Fine. But consequences follow.

Just like paying taxes. If your company doesnt pay there tax bill, eventually they get tossd from the commerce world.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well Shane both have empoyer and employee can be bigots. But that comes with a price. basically if your a bigot then you cant play the commerce game. The employee can say "no I dont want to work for a white boss". Fine, he doesnt get the job. He can go home and be a bigot all he wants. The employer, he can say 'No I dont want to hire a catholic" Fine. But consequences follow.

But those consequences should naturally flow from free market effects. They shouldn't be forced on anyone by government. To say otherwise is to say the employee has rights the employer doesn't, and we're back to the Animal Farm effect.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Cars don't have rights.
Following the context of this thread I believe this assumption ought to be challenged.


http://www.dyna.co.za/cars/1974_AMC_Rambler_Sportabout.jpg


What is the potential size and nature of consumer demand for this car? Is there a single large market for a used 1974 AMC Rambler? Nowadays the automobile market is divided into many smaller niches for specialized types of compact cars, sports cars, pickup trucks and so on. And new trends such as the sudden popularity of sport-utility vehicles and consumer demand for hybrid electric vehicles seem to leave little room for a vehicle that many car buyers may now consider old, disabled or even gay. But do they really? Is this fair? Most importantly, are they right?

Concerning race: This car is yellow. Were it black, white or baboon-ass purple it would make no difference. Nobody wants this goddamned car. And you don't have to lock it.

Sexual harassment: Men and women, both, seen driving this car will be laughed at and ridiculed.

Health questions such as smoking: It has a bad leak in the rear oil seal. Roll up your windows if you don't like it.

Equal pay for equal work: Just because you're driving a Lamborghini Diablo VT Roadster, don't try racing me across the parking lot if I have the right-of-way at the stop sign. This thing may not be crash tested yet.


A right is something that is due by law, tradition, or nature. Due to a design flaw in the tailgate latch on this Rambler, the damn thing somehow functions as a bottle opener for only US domestic brands of beer. That rounds the bases for me.

[BillyTK]

:dl:
Okay Frank, I surrender. I carnt beat that! :D