why would it be illegal to discriminate?

[r3vbr]

Isn't it in my right to discriminate against a group or race? not that i do, but why is it illegal for me to say ban blacks and asian people from my business (restaurant, store, etc)

As long as you dont cause physical harm to the other person I dont see why it should be illegal.
Also let's say I have a company and I make the following policy "no woman or fat people will every be promoted here". in a free society I don't see why companies are forbidden to do this

thoughts.

The short answer is: "Because the government passed a law making it so".

If you think the antidiscrimination laws should be repealed, I suggest you become politically active and work toward that end. You'll probably be more comfortable over at the Republican party.

[lehighguy]

Give him a better answer or don't respond. Your wasting words.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as you dont cause physical harm to the other person I dont see why it should be illegal.
Also let's say I have a company and I make the following policy "no woman or fat people will every be promoted here". in a free society I don't see why companies are forbidden to do this

[/ QUOTE ]

You have the right to associate with who you please.

You have the right to do business with who you please.

Government should not be permitted to discriminate (equal protection is vital), but individuals should not be restricted.

[r3vbr]

But in the US i think it IS forbidden isn't it? (im from Brazil so i don't know for sure)

[spamuell]

As usual, it depends on what you think liberty means.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
But in the US i think it IS forbidden isn't it? (im from Brazil so i don't know for sure)

[/ QUOTE ]

Some types of discrimination are illegal here. Businesses open to the public are generally prohibited from discriminating on some aspects. Private clubs have more leeway.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
in a free society I don't see why companies are forbidden to do this

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends whether you are a public or private venture -- you are not forbidden if you are private. It depends whether you recive any tax benefit as a non-profit -- you must be for-profit-private. It depends if you are an employer -- attorneys would advise you to outsource all labor contracts.

[ QUOTE ]
... I make the following policy "no woman or fat people will every be promoted here"

[/ QUOTE ]
This would be suicide. Don't be an employer of people, be an employer of services.

Thoughts?

I think your attitudes are shallow and narrow. I think the chances you will be a successful businessman are just as thin.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]


I think your attitudes are shallow and narrow. I think the chances you will be a successful businessman are just as thin.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize this is hypothetical right?

[lehighguy]

It's all pretty sketchy, and you never know when the law will change.

But debates about what are legal are completely independent of debates of what should be legal.

[bobman0330]

Only the most superficial analysis fails to comprehend the harms that can be caused by private discrimination. Sure, one restaurant that refuses to serve blacks isn't a huge deal (arguably), but when vast networks of restaurants and the like enact identical policies, the result is what we experienced in the South in the first part of this century. I think a loose analogy could be made to the reasons we have antitrust laws.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Only the most superficial analysis fails to comprehend the harms that can be caused by private discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harms? If someone wants to harm his business by limiting his clientelle, that's his problem.

[ QUOTE ]
I think a loose analogy could be made to the reasons we have antitrust laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

More poor legislation.

Business discrimination laws give one party power over another. Why should it be impermissible for Mr. Pink offering bacon and eggs in exchange for currency to refuse to trade with Mr. Blue but it's OK for Mr. Blue who is offering currency in exchange for bacon and eggs to refuse to do business with Mr. Pink? Why does one party get special privleges just because they are labeled "buyer" instead of "seller"?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Harms? If someone wants to harm his business by limiting his clientelle, that's his problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if he and a bunch of cronies want to harm a certain disfavored group in society by limiting their access to services? Sure, they might be harming their business, but they demonstrably don't care. I might be harming my fist to punch someone, but that doesn't mean the law should count on that deterring me to prevent the bad outcomes of assaults.

pvn, I think we need to start a separate thread about your political beliefs. Although suavely presented, and often persuasive on their surface, I'm coming to the belief that they're actually incoherent upon closer inspection. Let's start with the antitrust bit, then we can move on to how you plan to provide non-government national defense.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
What if he and a bunch of cronies want to harm a certain disfavored group in society by limiting their access to services?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Coercing anyone to associate with or trade with anyone else is reprehensible.


[ QUOTE ]
Sure, they might be harming their business, but they demonstrably don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should they be compelled to care?

[ QUOTE ]
I might be harming my fist to punch someone, but that doesn't mean the law should count on that deterring me to prevent the bad outcomes of assaults.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitting someone is not the same as not trading with them. It's not even close.

[ QUOTE ]
pvn, I think we need to start a separate thread about your political beliefs. Although suavely presented, and often persuasive on their surface, I'm coming to the belief that they're actually incoherent upon closer inspection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point out any inconsistencies as you find them.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's start with the antitrust bit, then we can move on to how you plan to provide non-government national defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Antitrust laws invariably harm consumers.

They are not used against monopolies, because monopolies derrive their market dominance from government protection in the first place. Instead, they punish firms that achieve market dominance through successful competition. The elimination of competitors is not the same as the elimination of competition (only government itself can achieve that).

[whiskeytown]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination in public places and bans it in any form of Federal or State law.

specificially, The 1964 Civil Rights Act made racial discrimination in public places, such as theaters, restaurants and hotels, illegal. It also required employers to provide equal employment opportunities. Projects involving federal funds could now be cut off if there was evidence of discriminated based on colour, race or national origin.

As a business owner, you are dependent on the Federal Government to do business - no matter what your job is, there are federal regulators and regulations we have to follow to do it - every business requires the Federal Government for many things.

As a result, the Fed says if you want our inspections, protection, advice, tax breaks, etc, then you WILL abide by the Civil Rights Act - if you wish to start a private neo-nazi bar for skinheads, fine, but expect to run afoul of Federal law.

That's the high and low of it - you don't like it, move to [censored] China.

RB

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

Government should not be permitted to discriminate (equal protection is vital)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should government not be permitted to discriminate? Why is equal protection vital for government but not for other entities?

pvn, besides your general desire to have absolutely no government at all, you have repeatedly declared in no uncertain terms that government is extremely inefficient and that government competes unfairly. Why do you now propose that government have extra restrictions that others should not have?

-ptmusic

(For the record, I am for anti-discrimination laws, in and out of government.)

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Government should not be permitted to discriminate (equal protection is vital)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should government not be permitted to discriminate? Why is equal protection vital for government but not for other entities?

pvn, besides your general desire to have absolutely no government at all, you have repeatedly declared in no uncertain terms that government is extremely inefficient and that government competes unfairly. Why do you now propose that government have extra restrictions that others should not have?

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as there is a government, it should not be permitted to discriminate, since the people that are oppressed by it can't avoid "doing business" with it.

Saying that one can move is not a valid counter to this argument, even in situations where free movement is allowed because this places restrictions on one's property rights. I don't have to sell my house and move to another country to boycott Denny's.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Government should not be permitted to discriminate (equal protection is vital)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should government not be permitted to discriminate? Why is equal protection vital for government but not for other entities?

pvn, besides your general desire to have absolutely no government at all, you have repeatedly declared in no uncertain terms that government is extremely inefficient and that government competes unfairly. Why do you now propose that government have extra restrictions that others should not have?

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as there is a government, it should not be permitted to discriminate, since the people that are oppressed by it can't avoid "doing business" with it.

Saying that one can move is not a valid counter to this argument, even in situations where free movement is allowed because this places restrictions on one's property rights. I don't have to sell my house and move to another country to boycott Denny's.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if Walmart was the only retailer anywhere near your rural house, and Walmart decided to discriminate against you?

-ptmusic

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it in my right to discriminate against a group or race? Not that I do, but why is it illegal for me to ban blacks and asian people from my business ? As long as you don't cause physical harm to the other person I dont see why it should be illegal. In a free society I don't see why [we] are forbidden to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The words "free society" are the ultimate sleight of hand!

You are ignoring the social contract implicit in your agreeing to live in a certain society. When you agree to stay on in the United States, you also have to agree to abide by the ways that the people of the United States have decided that their society would be run. One of those ways is that there will be no discrimination on the basis or race, sex, etc.

Freedom, in this context, means having the choice to get up and leave, if you disagree with so many of what the rest of the people are legislating and doing and you are not inclined to fight so that things get closer to your liking. I'm serious.

You can stay on, of course, and fight against that injustice, against that wrong, as you see it, but the point is that the people of the United States (more precisely, their legislature) have made it illegal to discriminate. For the US, then, mandatory non-discrimination is no injustice.

[whiskeytown]

nice reply -

I wonder how many people who proclaim there is no "Social Contract" ever read the Crito by Plato -

RB

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it in my right to discriminate against a group or race? Not that I do, but why is it illegal for me to ban blacks and asian people from my business ? As long as you don't cause physical harm to the other person I dont see why it should be illegal. In a free society I don't see why [we] are forbidden to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The words "free society" are the ultimate sleight of hand!

You are ignoring the social contract implicit in your agreeing to live in a certain society. When you agree to stay on in the United States, you also have to agree to abide by the ways that the people of the United States have decided that their society would be run. One of those ways is that there will be no discrimination on the basis or race, sex, etc.

Freedom, in this context, means having the choice to get up and leave, if you disagree with so many of what the rest of the people are legislating and doing and you are not inclined to fight so that things get closer to your liking. I'm serious.

You can stay on, of course, and fight against that injustice, against that wrong, as you see it, but the point is that the people of the United States (more precisely, their legislature) have made it illegal to discriminate. For the US, then, mandatory non-discrimination is no injustice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus, what is it that the conservatives love to say? "America, love it or leave it (unless the hippy liberals are in control or passed a law)"

The libertarianism in this thread is borderline racist and is pretty disgusting. Discriminating against someone based on race harms them psychologically and sometimes physically (two ways this happens-- first, people have mental breakdowns, and second, areas where discrimination runs rampant foster lynchings and the like). I realize that the liberatarians are against preventative laws but this is not a preventative law-- racist discrimination is on the same level as violence.

Also, PVN has absolutely zero justification for his claim that it is "reprehensible" to coerce people to trade with one another. No warrant for this claim makes sense given the brightline of 'you may not coerce trade except in those situations where trade would have taken place if it weren't for racism.' PVN cannot come up with an impact to his argument because it is silly, ideological, and poorly thought out.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize this is hypothetical right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Apologies. I'm new to the "Elliot Richardsn" Forum. I never know what to expect. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn, I think we need to start a separate thread about your political beliefs. Although suavely presented, and often persuasive on their surface, I'm coming to the belief that they're actually incoherent upon closer inspection.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you need more peripheral vision. I, for one, welcome the comments in context -- a lot of width and depth -- very little if any ambiguity -- roadmaps to the issues, if not the solution.

[SheetWise]

Where to start ...

[ QUOTE ]
You are ignoring the social contract implicit in your agreeing to live in a certain society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreeing? I was born here. You confuse "Laws" with "Rules". I don't have to agree to laws -- the law is the law. I can choose not to agree or abide by rules. If I have to agree, then it is not a law.

[ QUOTE ]
When you agree to stay on in the United States, you also have to agree to abide by the ways that the people of the United States have decided that their society would be run. One of those ways is that there will be no discrimination on the basis or race, sex, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
You do not have to agree (see above). The State wants you to believe you must agree. Earlier in this thread I gave many examples of how not to agree. They do require that you limit the way you interact because the State has used Regulatory Law (non-law, or rules) as a means to force compliance.

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom, in this context, means having the choice to get up and leave ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Agree to tyranny or leave? What?

This is wrong on so many levels ...

[DuceTrey23]

As far as what's illegal, if you exclude anyone that is not a White Heterosexual Male between the ages of 18 - 45, then it's illegal. If you exclude this particular group, then it's OK. I'm a WASP and went to a 'Historically Black' University and it amazed me at how minorities, Blacks in particular were OK with double-standards as long as they benefited.

[Cyrus]

If I was sure of one thing, it was that my post would be misconstrued to be a variation of the standard conservative reply to dissidents of any sort. But it's not.



[ QUOTE ]
Agreeing [to live in a certain society]? I was born here.

[/ QUOTE ]
And Tasmanians were born in Tasmania. Some people were even born in Nazi Germany. Getting up and leaving is usually not an option, (most of the time for technical reasons) but the point is this : The adult who lives in a society enters implicitly but quite clearly into an implicit contract with that society.

As to the relevance of economic refugees in the argument, I will leave it to the laisser passer experts to expand on.

[ QUOTE ]
You confuse "Laws" with "Rules". I don't have to agree to laws -- the law is the law. I can choose not to agree or abide by rules. If I have to agree, then it is not a law.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not confusing anything. Your "rules" are either imposed democratically, in the only proper sense of the word, in which case there is a tautology between "rules" are the "law" - or they are the result of heteronomy in which case you are following yer own rules (if you are brave) but are obliged to follow the laws.

To confuse you even further, that was not good enough for Socrates who, when presiding over the trial of the military heroes of Athens, heroes who were accused of various things by the people, chose to forestall and delay the trial as much as needed for the innocence of the accused to shine through. I.e. he went against the will of the people, following his own moral rules. Reconcile this with Socrates refusing to disobey and escape from the (clearly wrong, too) decision of the Athenians to put him to death. He drank the hemlock.

I understand the root cause of the confusion, here. And, surprisingly enough, some of the viewpoints of the Libertarian Right (ugh!) are accurate, as to the interaction of State and individual and the impossibility to overcome the inherent imbalance between the two. ("State" in the sense of the kratos, the organisational apparatus of enforcing the will of the ruling class and implementing its dictats.)

We have to understand that the State is either autonomous (literally : "creating its own laws") through the self-determination of its citizens -or- we have variations of non-democracy, from the extreme of total dictatorship and control à la Stalinist USSR to the extreme of benign liberal oligarchy à la modern USA.

A society of free citizens that legislates freely and determines/changes its own rules, and is also ruled with mandated, revocable representatives, has given to "laws" and "rules" one and the same sign (tautosemous).

One of the worst punishments in Athenian democracy was exile, by the way.

[Cyrus]

Very briefly : The original question was not about career advice. Whether or not the OP will not be a good businessman is irrelevant : That eventuality will merely reflect the public's level of approval of the OP's business practices. *

The OP poses a significant question: In the context of a society as the Libertarians imagine it (see pvn's succinct post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3371842&page=0&view=e xpanded&sb=6&o=&vc=1)), not only do companies and persons have the same rights (the USSC already ruled on that!), but persons and companies should be "free to discriminate".

Are you ready, folks, for the revelation of the trick ?

That would not be a society we would be dealing with! That would be an amalgam of individuals who happen to live together geographically. Like in most tricks, the definition of the premises is violated as soon as the trick starts.

But we have already been through this stage in our evolution, as you should know, many many thousands of years ago. Man almost immediately formed societies for reasons of self-preservation, and more. The seemingly correct (in its instictive abhorrence of kratos) Libertarian Right's position wants to take us back to that pre-historic age, following a line of "thought" that expands the clumsy, "magical" and so-far-catastrophic axioms of one particular economic theory to all aspects of human endeavours and civilisation.

And History, as well. Like all fanatics, the fanatics of anti-social "freedom" interpret History through the lens of their pet economic theory, copying the Marxist practice of same.

_________________


* As if Wal-Mart is doing badly, by the way!

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
You are ignoring the social contract implicit in your agreeing to live in a certain society.

[/ QUOTE ]

The social contract is a concept used to justify oppression.

According to Rousseau, the social contract required that "whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free." What this really means, according to a critic of Rousseau's work, is that "freedom is no longer conceived as the independence of the individual. It is rather to be sought in his total surrender to the service of the State."

[ QUOTE ]
When you agree to stay on in the United States, you also have to agree to abide by the ways that the people of the United States have decided that their society would be run. One of those ways is that there will be no discrimination on the basis or race, sex, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have obeyed the law. That doesn't mean I think it's right. I don't have any particular desire to behave in a manner contrary to antidiscrimination laws, but I still believe they are anti-freedom.

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom, in this context, means having the choice to get up and leave, if you disagree with so many of what the rest of the people are legislating and doing and you are not inclined to fight so that things get closer to your liking. I'm serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, don't vote, rebel. Or leave. We've already had this discussion. It first assumes that there is somewhere better to go. It also assumes that your property rights are less important than the right of the masses to oppress you.

[ QUOTE ]
You can stay on, of course, and fight against that injustice, against that wrong, as you see it, but the point is that the people of the United States (more precisely, their legislature) have made it illegal to discriminate. For the US, then, mandatory non-discrimination is no injustice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is advocating more freedom not "fighting" in your book? Must one resort to violence, leave the country, or shut up? Did Ghandi "fight" or was he a "criminal" against the social order?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
racist discrimination is on the same level as violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not even close. And racism really has nothing to do with it. The basic arguement here is that if you (as a "businessman") let anyone into your house, you have to let everyone who wants to come in into your house. At the same time, this argument says you have no right to demand entry into others' ("consumers") houses.

The distinction between buyers and sellers is arbitrary. There are two parties agreeing to a mutually benefitial transaction. Coercing one of them into trading with anyone who demands it while the other is free to pick and choose who he trades with is, to be blunt, evil.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, PVN has absolutely zero justification for his claim that it is "reprehensible" to coerce people to trade with one another.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's NOT reprehensible about forcing someone to do something?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as what's illegal, if you exclude anyone that is not a White Heterosexual Male between the ages of 18 - 45, then it's illegal. If you exclude this particular group, then it's OK. I'm a WASP and went to a 'Historically Black' University and it amazed me at how minorities, Blacks in particular were OK with double-standards as long as they benefited.

[/ QUOTE ]

Discriminating against people who are white or male is illegal. Discriminating against people under 18 (or under any age, except in New York) is not. Also, discriminating against people who are over 40 in an employment context is illegal. /images/graemlins/smile.gif But I get the gist of your post

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
The distinction between buyers and sellers is arbitrary. There are two parties agreeing to a mutually benefitial transaction. Coercing one of them into trading with anyone who demands it while the other is free to pick and choose who he trades with is, to be blunt, evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn, do you have any problem with anti-discrimination laws other than that they're acts of government? That is, do you find them more or less evil than, say, the income tax or the Interstate highway system?

I think the buyers/sellers distinction is more an enforcement issue that anything else. I think most people don't think buyer discrimination is illegal, it's just impossible to enforce in most cases. So the distinction isn't really arbitrary at all.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn, do you have any problem with anti-discrimination laws other than that they're acts of government? That is, do you find them more or less evil than, say, the income tax or the Interstate highway system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't follow, since income tax and interstate highways are also acts of government. I find anti-discrimination laws offensive because they are coercive. Government itself is coercive by nature, so it's not surprising that I also find acts of government offensive.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the buyers/sellers distinction is more an enforcement issue that anything else. I think most people don't think buyer discrimination is illegal, it's just impossible to enforce in most cases. So the distinction isn't really arbitrary at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's permissible to discriminate if it's hard to catch you doing it? That's the distiction? One party is easier to identify as a offender?

So if enforcement were more efficient, I (as a "buyer") should be forced to trade with a seller that I find objectionable? Two guys are selling gas on opposite corners of a street. One is a KKK member. Am I "guilty" of illegal discrimination if I choose to trade with the other guy? What if the KKK member's business is closer to my home and I choose to go out of my way to trade with the other guy?

What if I own a fast food restuarant and descriminate by refusing to serve anyone who looks too fat?

Is that ok since it would be for their benefit?

Bear in mind I wouldnt be imposing my beliefs if they want to eat elsewhere, but since I own this restaurant I will do my bit for society and refuse to allow them to eat.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you ready, folks, for the revelation of the trick ? That would not be a society we would be dealing with! That would be an amalgam of individuals who happen to live together geographically.

[/ QUOTE ]
dictionary.com

so·ci·e·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-s-t)
n. pl. so·ci·e·ties

1
1.a. The totality of social relationships among humans.
1.b. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
1.c. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.
2. An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest: a folklore society; a society of bird watchers.

[ QUOTE ]
Like in most tricks, the definition of the premises is violated as soon as the trick starts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice trick Cyrus.

[ QUOTE ]
But we have already been through this stage in our evolution, as you should know, many many thousands of years ago. Man almost immediately formed societies for reasons of self-preservation, and more. The seemingly correct (in its instictive abhorrence of kratos) Libertarian Right's position wants to take us back to that pre-historic age, following a line of "thought" that expands the clumsy, "magical" and so-far-catastrophic axioms of one particular economic theory to all aspects of human endeavours and civilisation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's impossible to discuss discrimination with people who have predetermined what non-discriminatory results would look like, and hold all people accountable to their predetermined model.

[SheetWise]

That's where we're heading.
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe as an alternative to taxes, there might be a call for laws similar to what's called the Dram Shop Act in some states, which prohibits the sale of alcohol to intoxicated persons. Applied to food, that law might ban the sale of hamburgers and fries to a fat person, or a mandate that scales be placed in front of cash registers where a customer is weighed prior to a sale.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read. (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams061103.asp)

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
What if I own a fast food restuarant and descriminate by refusing to serve anyone who looks too fat?

Is that ok since it would be for their benefit?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's OK because it's your choice of who to trade with.

[ QUOTE ]
Bear in mind I wouldnt be imposing my beliefs if they want to eat elsewhere, but since I own this restaurant I will do my bit for society and refuse to allow them to eat.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not imposing your beliefs because nobody is dependent on you and you alone for food.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was sure of one thing, it was that my post would be misconstrued to be a variation of the standard conservative reply to dissidents of any sort. But it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]
That clears it up. Your post was not ... what you said we think it is? And you believe that we misconstrue it to be " a variation of the standard conservative reply to dissidents of any sort"? Parse that for me.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not confusing anything. Your "rules" are either imposed democratically, in the only proper sense of the word, in which case there is a tautology between "rules" are the "law" - or they are the result of heteronomy in which case you are following yer own rules (if you are brave) but are obliged to follow the laws.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you believe what you wrote here, you have risen to the level of serf (aka, Comrade). Fortunately, the law is still the law. I would have a great time writing contracts with you. If you believe the crap you write is the way the world is -- you are extemely vulnerable to people who know how it is.

[edthayer]

I think it's important to realize that pvn is not advocating racism or racial discrimination. It's sad that those opposed to the libertarian view on this issue need to resort to painting us as racists instead of addressing the real issue, which is, of course, making someone do something they don't want to do.

I think that anti-discrimination laws prevent race issues from being brought into the light of day. I personally don't want to do business with a racist, because I find that viewpoint deplorable. If we allow racists to show their true colors, I doubt they'd stay in business for long, because I'd imagine at least 9/10 of their customers would not want to shop at a place that says "No blacks" on the door (not to mention their loss of their black clients).

Racism is a point a view, and here in America we have the right to free expression of our ideas, whether or not those ideas happen to be ignorant and stupid.

[SheetWise]

Agreed. And I don't think we've even scratched the surface of what issues could come forward. Poker Players are being unfairly discriminated against by mortgage companies ... poor people are unfairly treated at Neiman Marcus ... Unemployed rich people are unfairly treated at Unemployment Office ... Employed Poor people are treated unfairly at Food Stamp offices ....

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
[In a free society] [i]sn't it in my right to discriminate against a group or race?

[/ QUOTE ]
In a free society, isn't it my right not to be discriminated against?

[lehighguy]

For some fun (disturbing) reading try Martin vs PGA Tour (2001). Pay special attention to Scalia's dissent.

[lehighguy]

That's like saying you have a right to have everyone love you.

People get discriminated against for being short, having curly hair, reading books, whatever.

There are much better legislative arguements for discrimination laws then yours. There are also much better ways to handle discrimination laws then what is currently in practice.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[In a free society] [i]sn't it in my right to discriminate against a group or race?

[/ QUOTE ]
In a free society, isn't it my right not to be discriminated against?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You have no right to dictate the actions of others, as long as they do not harm you. Declining to associate with or trade with you is not a harm.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't follow, since income tax and interstate highways are also acts of government. I find anti-discrimination laws offensive because they are coercive. Government itself is coercive by nature, so it's not surprising that I also find acts of government offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I wanted to know... you seemed to be particularly concerned by the alleged arbitrariness of AD laws, and I wanted to find out how they ranked compared to other enactments.

[ QUOTE ]
So it's permissible to discriminate if it's hard to catch you doing it? That's the distiction? One party is easier to identify as a offender?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I feel quite confident that most people (myself included) feel that racists should not be allowed to boycott minority-owned stores based purely on race. The only problem is that enforcement costs outweight the damage from this sort of discrimination, which is less harmful than seller discrimination in any case.

[ QUOTE ]
So if enforcement were more efficient, I (as a "buyer") should be forced to trade with a seller that I find objectionable? Two guys are selling gas on opposite corners of a street. One is a KKK member. Am I "guilty" of illegal discrimination if I choose to trade with the other guy? What if the KKK member's business is closer to my home and I choose to go out of my way to trade with the other guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Choosing not to trade with the KKK member would be discrimination, but not illegal discrimination. Likewise on trading with a Black Panther.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Choosing not to trade with the KKK member would be discrimination, but not illegal discrimination. Likewise on trading with a Black Panther.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care what is or is not legal (well, not in that particular argument), I'm talking about what should or should not be permitted.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Choosing not to trade with the KKK member would be discrimination, but not illegal discrimination. Likewise on trading with a Black Panther.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? It's okay because you disagree with them? Where do you draw the line with this "acceptable discrimination"?

[SheetWise]

I remember.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I feel quite confident that most people (myself included) feel that racists should not be allowed to boycott minority-owned stores based purely on race. The only problem is that enforcement costs outweight the damage from this sort of discrimination, which is less harmful than seller discrimination in any case.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your post has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site. And to put it in perspective, I've even read some of Elliot Richardsn's stuff.

The "only" problem?

God grant me the serenity ...

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Yes. I feel quite confident that most people (myself included) feel that racists should not be allowed to boycott minority-owned stores based purely on race. The only problem is that enforcement costs outweight the damage from this sort of discrimination, which is less harmful than seller discrimination in any case.


Your post has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site. And to put it in perspective, I've even read some of Elliot Richardsn's stuff.

The "only" problem?

God grant me the serenity ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree with SheetWise on this.

Bobman: is your idea of a free society one where you must justify all your business transactions with the state? Or do you not care for a free society? Is a small fraction of ignorant people in our society worth creating a monstrous government institution charged with protecting people's feelings?

I'd really like to understand where you are coming from.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Bear in mind I wouldnt be imposing my beliefs if they want to eat elsewhere, but since I own this restaurant I will do my bit for society and refuse to allow them to eat.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not imposing your beliefs because nobody is dependent on you and you alone for food.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what if somebody WAS dependent on you (a business) and you alone?

It seems like you answer every comment or question posed to you, so I was surprised you didn't give at least a curt reply to my earlier question regarding just this point.

I'll try again:

What if Walmart was the only retailer anywhere near your rural house, and Walmart decided to discriminate against you?

In other words, should they have the right to discriminate and effectively force you to move?

-ptmusic

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
But what if somebody WAS dependent on you (a business) and you alone?

It seems like you answer every comment or question posed to you, so I was surprised you didn't give at least a curt reply to my earlier question regarding just this point.

I'll try again:

What if Walmart was the only retailer anywhere near your rural house, and Walmart decided to discriminate against you?

In other words, should they have the right to discriminate and effectively force you to move?

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this scenario highly improbable that
A) Wal-Mart is the only retailer in the area and
B) A large name brand store choses to exercise racial discrimination.

No large chain of stores is going to start discriminating-- it would be financial suicide. I guarentee there would be a national scale boycott.

Nevertheless, if this highly unlikely situation occurred, the person can simply use the internet or have a friend make the purchases. I'm sure there are other solutions too.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But what if somebody WAS dependent on you (a business) and you alone?

It seems like you answer every comment or question posed to you, so I was surprised you didn't give at least a curt reply to my earlier question regarding just this point.

I'll try again:

What if Walmart was the only retailer anywhere near your rural house, and Walmart decided to discriminate against you?

In other words, should they have the right to discriminate and effectively force you to move?

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this scenario highly improbable that
A) Wal-Mart is the only retailer in the area and
B) A large name brand store choses to exercise racial discrimination.

No large chain of stores is going to start discriminating-- it would be financial suicide. I guarentee there would be a national scale boycott.

Nevertheless, if this highly unlikely situation occurred, the person can simply use the internet or have a friend make the purchases. I'm sure there are other solutions too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is unlikely, but so is pvn's goal of having no government. Much of this thread is hypothetical, including the question of "why can't my restaurant discriminate if I want to?"

- ptmusic

[lehighguy]

The likeliness is important. There are negative impacts of anti-discrimination laws, so there must be a compelling reason for thier existence. If they really don't do much good then they may be having a net negative effect.

In the old south this may have been necessary, and while I'm aware they are still pretty backward there I don't think that anti-discrimination laws are having nearly the same level of positive impact they once did. Thier use is dwindling, and we should be re-evaluating thier function and implementation to make them more effective (which may entail a scaling back or modification).

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
But what if somebody WAS dependent on you (a business) and you alone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it sucks for you. You still don't have the right to force anyone to accomodate you. If I have kidney failure, and there's only one man in the world with the same rare blood type as I have, I don't have a right to his kidney. Even if he has two and I only need one. Maybe he'll give it to me, maybe not.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like you answer every comment or question posed to you, so I was surprised you didn't give at least a curt reply to my earlier question regarding just this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I did see your question and I thought I had answered it directly. (not that I OWE you an answer, of course. /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, should they have the right to discriminate and effectively force you to move?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're framing this as a false dichotomy. They have the right to discriminate, but they aren't forcing you to move.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Yes. I feel quite confident that most people (myself included) feel that racists should not be allowed to boycott minority-owned stores based purely on race. The only problem is that enforcement costs outweight the damage from this sort of discrimination, which is less harmful than seller discrimination in any case.


Your post has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site. And to put it in perspective, I've even read some of Elliot Richardsn's stuff.

The "only" problem?

God grant me the serenity ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree with SheetWise on this.

Bobman: is your idea of a free society one where you must justify all your business transactions with the state? Or do you not care for a free society? Is a small fraction of ignorant people in our society worth creating a monstrous government institution charged with protecting people's feelings?

I'd really like to understand where you are coming from.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to say, I'm a little taken aback by the level of vitriol here. And I'm staggered to hear that someone doesn't understand where I'm coming from in support of anti-discrimination laws (i'm going to go out on a limb and assume you're going to include employment discrimination as well). In some sort of a priori world, I suppose I could see why a body of laws requiring you to make all sorts of decisions without considering the tone of another person's skin would seem a bit odd.

In the world we actually live in, anyone who doesn't see the absolute necessity of AD laws is just plain stupid, or possibly blinded by ideology. Surely you're familiar with pictures that resemble this:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/18/king.legacy/segregation.jpg
Not 50 years ago, such prohibitions were prevalent across the old South. "A vast right-wing conspiracy" existed to keep African-Americans a segregated and disadvantaged class. Of course, it didn't help that they were already impoverished by the legacy of slavery. White defection from this scheme was deterred by the threat of similar economic sanctions and the unspoken but omnipresent threat of a bunch of men in white hoods. The result of this extremely successful system was that blacks were forced to endure another century of poverty and oppression. (To boot, this system was, of course, economically inefficient, as a very large portion of the population was prevented from engaging in productive activity.) Too bad those "evil" bastards in Washington had to intrude on this idyllic system.

You've got to be [censored] kidding me. I'm beginning to see where Kanye was coming from.

(pvn, if you're too blind to see that unacceptable harm can be inflicted on a person in ways other than physical force, analogize the white conspiracy to a pseudo-government. As we know, governments are horrible, and outlawing them would be good.)

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
(pvn, if you're too blind to see that unacceptable harm can be inflicted on a person in ways other than physical force, analogize the white conspiracy to a pseudo-government. As we know, governments are horrible, and outlawing them would be good.)

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between action and inaction. Dressing up in white hoods and lynching people is violent, coercive, and intimidating. Refusing to engage in a transaction with another man is none of those.

It's deplorable, it's bad business, but it's also the individual's right to choose to act or not. Coercing the racist to engage in transactions he has no desire to engage in is more evil than his own personal beliefs.

[SheetWise]

There are many examples of how the free market corrects discrimination. Read the story of the Bank of Italy (http://www.beardbooks.com/the_story_of_bank_of_america.html) for an example of what happened when banks discriminated against Italians in California. It's now known as the Bank of America.

If you've ever done any marketing, you'll come across the realities of "customer acquisition cost". I don't think most people understand how high those cost are -- even restaurants will frequently pay $200-300 per customer . ISP's are higher yet. Grocers will pay even more. Banks are higher still. The Bank of America story shows how the market treats businesses that discriminate. Because the existing banks would not deal with Italians, one entrepreneur exploited their idiocy and created a bank with a customer acquisition cost of zero -- all he had to do was announce he would deal with Italians.

Watch television or read a newspaper -- local television could be $10k a minute, a page in the newspaper $5-20k. Businesses selling cars and homes will spend thousands to acquire a customer. When you understand acquisition costs, you will also understand why many claims of discrimination are BS. You will frequently hear claims that a bank is turning away a disproportionate number of minorities, or that banks refuse to deal with inner city blacks because they are black. The simple fact that other banks are not lining up to serve this market you can accept as proof there was no discrimination based on race -- the discrimination was based on their credit worthiness. The opportunity to acquire any market with little or no cost is so tempting it will never be ignored for long.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many examples of how the free market corrects discrimination

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, we have a history in this country that is a great example of where the free market didn't work to correct discrimination. We have a history where business discrimination fueled a widespread discrimination that helped to create and maintain a permanent underclass. We had a society where business discrimination fueled hatred, violence, and fear and that hatred/violence/fear fueled even more discrimination. The problem is that it's easy to say we can let the market fix it (eventually.) We'll just sacrifice a few generations of black people while the market catches up. Oh, and by the way, even if the market could now fix the problem the underclass created doesn't have enough market pull to make a difference.

The market might be able to, in time, fix discrimination. However, I wouldn't be willing to sit by and wait for it to happen.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe what you wrote here, you have risen to the level of serf (aka, Comrade).

[/ QUOTE ]
In other words, aspiring for a truly democratic, autonomous and free society is akin to thinking like a serf. Or a communist.

Nice perspective, there, sir.

[ QUOTE ]
Fortunately, the law is still the law. I would have a great time writing contracts with you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you ?

Why is it that one's expanding on ideals of a better society gives to people like you the notion that one's a babe in the woods? You're welcome to try and outwit me in negotiations any time. (Ah, if only life was like this, as Woody Allen said.)

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe the crap you write is the way the world is...

[/ QUOTE ] I do not believe this is the way the world is. Stop making a fool of yourself.

PVN already covered that ground, but you are reading strictly with colored glasses. And although what PVN supports in economics is closer to your thinking than mine, his position on this particular matter is identical to what I go by : Briefly, although I do not think I will live to see the kind of society I have described here, this does not mean that I should abandon everything and stop striving for that ideal any way I can. It's as simple as that.

[Cyrus]

I submit that a society without any social linkages is not a society by definition - and you respond by copying & pasting the definition of "society" from a lexicon.

I guess you are out of arguments. Nice talking to you.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, we have a history in this country that is a great example of where the free market didn't work to correct discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]
One could also argue that the free market is not free.
[ QUOTE ]
The emergence of segregation in the South actually began immediately after the Civil War when the formerly enslaved people acted quickly to establish their own churches and schools separate from whites. At the same time, most southern states tried to limit the economic and physical freedom of the formerly enslaved by adopting laws known as Black Codes. Link (http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the market discriminates far less than government.

There is a clear relationship between discrimination and market barriers. The lower the barriers are to enter a market, the less discrimination there is -- for the same reasons given earlier. Historically racists have used the government as an ally to erect barriers -- both through unions and legislation (http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/unionsandotherorganizations/davisbacon.html).

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
I submit that a society without any social linkages is not a society by definition - and you respond by copying & pasting the definition of "society" from a lexicon.

I guess you are out of arguments. Nice talking to you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well if you don't like what some words mean, then just pick some other ones. There are plenty.
[ QUOTE ]
That would not be a society we would be dealing with! That would be an amalgam of individuals who happen to live together geographically.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are we still pretending that means something?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
That's like saying you have a right to have everyone love you.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not. It saying that maybe a free society doesn't only mean rights to do what I want, it means that other people have a right for me not to do certain things.

[ QUOTE ]
People get discriminated against for being short, having curly hair, reading books, whatever.


[/ QUOTE ]
You compare that to the discrimination that can happen because of race?

[ QUOTE ]
There are much better legislative arguements for discrimination laws then yours

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure ther are.

[ QUOTE ]
There are also much better ways to handle discrimination laws then what is currently in practice.


[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously.

[Il_Mostro]

If we all start at the same level I more or less agree with you. But we don't. Therefor I'd say that a shop/restaurant/whatever refusing to deal with someone because of skin-color should not be legal.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that one's expanding on ideals of a better society gives to people like you the notion that one's a babe in the woods?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the following statement didn't sound to me like "expanding on ideals of a better society", it sounded as if you believed it.

[ QUOTE ]
A society of free citizens that legislates freely and determines/changes its own rules, and is also ruled with mandated, revocable representatives, has given to "laws" and "rules" one and the same sign (tautosemous).


[/ QUOTE ]

[lehighguy]

"No it's not. It saying that maybe a free society doesn't only mean rights to do what I want, it means that other people have a right for me not to do certain things."

Do you have the right to make them do things? For instance, a store owner that denies service isn't being told what he can't do, he's being told what he MUST do.

Requiring people to take actions they otherwise wouldn't is an immense imposistion by the state. An analogy would be if you didn't want to play baseball on the weekends, but you were forced to under some penalty if you did not.

The state must have an overwhelming and compelling interest in order to impose what amounts to involuntary slavery. The larger the imposistion the larger the compelling interest must be. Also, it is important that law is tailored in such a way that it achieves the compelling interest at the least cost to society.

In summary, the following factors are most important:
1) How important is personal freedom? How highly do you value it? What level of affront is proposed legislating to your values?
2) What is the compelling state interest involved? How compelling is it?
3) Will the legislation be effective at achieving the states goal? What will be the costs and consequences?

For PVN, the answer to 1 is so overwhelming the other two are irrelevant. A value near infinety is placed on personal freedom, especially the ability to not be forcefully conscripted into taking certain actions.

I too share such a high value, though maybe a little short of infinity. While 2 seemed more relevant 50 years ago, its importance has diminished now.

The third set of questions is the most damaging against the policies case. The costs (social and economic) of modern discrimination legislation are very high, while potential benefits are much smaller then they once were (I would even make a case they have a negative effect in modern times).

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, a store owner that denies service isn't being told what he can't do, he's being told what he MUST do.

[/ QUOTE ]
No he is not. He is being told that he can't refuse to serve/sell to certain people based on irrelevant things. He is not told he MUST sell to them, only in the case they want to buy.

[ QUOTE ]
An analogy would be if you didn't want to play baseball on the weekends, but you were forced to under some penalty if you did not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Umm, no.

[ QUOTE ]
The state must have an overwhelming and compelling interest in order to impose what amounts to involuntary slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let me see if I get this. Not being able to refuse to sell to someone based on their skin-color = involuntary slavery? And here I were, thinking that slavery didn't include getting paid for your work, didn't include the right to close shop and move to do something else, and so on.
Come on, surely you can do better than those silly "analogies"?

[ QUOTE ]
The costs (social and economic) of modern discrimination legislation are very high

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it? Have any numbers for it? Serious question, I have no idea about the costs, especially not in the US, as I belive you are mainly talking about?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't like what some words mean, then just pick some other ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
If there are no links between the members of a society (ie social links), then this is not a society we are dealing with -- and that's, I submit, by definition.

What part of this do you not understand ?

We can give examples from set theory. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That would not be a society we would be dealing with! That would be an amalgam of individuals who happen to live together geographically.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are we still pretending that means something

[/ QUOTE ]
It means precisely what it says it means. I can make things as simple as possible for you but not any simpler. Look up "amalgam", "geography" and "individuals", if you still can't get it.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
No he is not. He is being told that he can't refuse to serve/sell to certain people based on irrelevant things. He is not told he MUST sell to them, only in the case they want to buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we have Mr. Pink who has some ice cream cones. He doesn't want to trade one to Mr. Blue for some amount of currency, but the government makes him do it.

Now Mr. Blue has some hot dogs. He wants to trade with with Mr. Pink, but again, Mr. Pink doesn't want to trade with Mr. Blue. Should the government force Mr. Pink to trade currency to Mr. Blue for the hot dogs?

What's the difference in these two cases?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, aspiring for a truly democratic, autonomous and free society is akin to thinking like a serf. Or a communist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Democracy is incompatible with autonomy and free society.

Actually, I object to the use of "society" in most cases. People (or businesses) don't interact with society. They interact with other entities.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that one's expanding on ideals of a better society gives to people like you the notion that one's a babe in the woods?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the following statement didn't sound to me like "expanding on ideals of a better society", it sounded as if you believed it.

[ QUOTE ]
A society of free citizens that legislates freely and determines/changes its own rules, and is also ruled with mandated, revocable representatives, has given to "laws" and "rules" one and the same sign (tautosemous).

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the propensity to confuse with semantics. Must be second nature by now, after all the years of making tax obligations disappear!

Yes, of course, I believe it. I believe that such a society would be best for humankind. (And it so happens that it has already worked successfuly in the past!)

I also believe that it is not a society that I will get to see in my lifetime. If you wanted to bet on a date, for instance, I'd decline.

Which, in turn, does not mean that I'm supposed to abandon any kind of effort towards such a society and become an apolitical person. On the contrary, I strongly believe that striving towards one's ideals is a worthy and beneficial endeavor, that not only could make one a better person but also might be good for others in general.

[Il_Mostro]

To me it's a big difference if you are the buyer or the seller.
The seller should not be allowed to refuse to sell to someone because of their skin-color, if they are paying the asked price. If the seller is a company that is, if the seller is acting as a private citisen he can sell to anyone he wants to.
The buyer can choose to buy from anyone he pleases.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, we have a history in this country that is a great example of where the free market didn't work to correct discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You have a case where *government* didn't work to correct discrimination (that it itself enabled!) for a long time. The market only functions inside the framework imposed upon it by government.

Besides all of the official government-instituted racism that existed, you can't have the KKK running around intimidating anyone willing to deal fairly with blacks, doing so with the support of corrupt local polititians, and say that the market failed.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
To me it's a big difference if you are the buyer or the seller.
The seller should not be allowed to refuse to sell to someone because of their skin-color, if they are paying the asked price. If the seller is a company that is, if the seller is acting as a private citisen he can sell to anyone he wants to.
The buyer can choose to buy from anyone he pleases.

[/ QUOTE ]

So "buyers" have more rights than sellers? What if they're trading hotdogs for ice cream cones? Is money a privleged commodity?

Why is there a difference between a company and a person? The company is owned by a person (or people). Is it OK for a guy selling hot dogs on a street corner to discriminate in your view? He's just a guy, not a big multinational hotdog conglomerate.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
So "buyers" have more rights than sellers?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes
[ QUOTE ]
What if they're trading hotdogs for ice cream cones? Is money a privledged commodity?

[/ QUOTE ]
If the seller will sell one hotdog for one cone he must do so to anyone who wants to buy. If he only does it once because he really wants a cone, then so be it.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is there a difference between a company and a person?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because they are not the same.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it OK for a guy selling hot dogs on a street corner to discriminate in your view? He's just a guy, not a big multinational hotdog conglomerate.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not ok. Size doesn't matter. He's a seller.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if they're trading hotdogs for ice cream cones? Is money a privledged commodity?

[/ QUOTE ]
If the seller will sell one hotdog for one cone he must do so to anyone who wants to buy. If he only does it once because he really wants a cone, then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, which one is the seller?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Democracy is incompatible with autonomy and free society.

[/ QUOTE ]
As soon as you accept that Man cannot live outside a society, you are set on the road that leads to democracy. A free society is a society that rules itself and legislates for itself, in full knowledge that it is autonomous, literally, and not heteronomous (i.e. not accepting "godly dictats" as its laws).

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I object to the use of "society" in most cases. People (or businesses) don't interact with society. They interact with other entities.

[/ QUOTE ]
"People do not interact with society"? What is that supposed to mean? And what "other entities"?? People interact with other people. Sometimes even with their pets...

Society is an abject entity. You cannot touch it, smell it or make love to it. (Of course, sometimes it can screw you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif) But it most certainly exists!

And it is not tough to figure out that society is made up of two components: its members (be they people or, alas, corporations) and the relations between them. That's what, very roughly, makes a society.

In other words, as long as we live in relatively close geographical proximity of each other AND maintain various explicit or implicit social agreements (which shape our various interactions), then we are living within a society - whether we like it or not!

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]

Wait, which one is the seller?

[/ QUOTE ]
Whichever one that is a company.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I object to the use of "society" in most cases. People (or businesses) don't interact with society. They interact with other entities.

[/ QUOTE ]
"People do not interact with society"? What is that supposed to mean? And what "other entities"?? People interact with other people. Sometimes even with their pets...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sometimes you interact with businesses, or government. But you never interact with society.

[ QUOTE ]
And it is not tough to figure out that society is made up of two components: its members (be they people or, alas, corporations) and the relations between them. That's what, very roughly, makes a society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't interact with relations.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, as long as we live in relatively close geographical proximity of each other AND maintain various explicit or implicit social agreements (which shape our various interactions), then we are living within a society - whether we like it or not!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you live in a "society" but you also live in a "universe" or a "neighborhood".

The point is that looking at "societal interactions" rather than actual, real interactions between discrete entities (people, businesses, etc) will give you screwy results, such as doing things that oppress individuals in the name of doing "good for society".

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wait, which one is the seller?

[/ QUOTE ]
Whichever one that is a company.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if they're both companies? Or neither?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wait, which one is the seller?

[/ QUOTE ]
Whichever one that is a company.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if they're both companies? Or neither?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should companies have fewer rights than the people that own those companies? You're saying people have a right, but by owning a company a person gives up that right?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]

What if they're both companies? Or neither?

[/ QUOTE ]
That really should be clear by now, but ok. If both are companies they have to sell the cone/hotdog to eachother for the set price which they would sell to anyone (this is not taking into consideration if there are special rules about trading between companies)
If neither is a company they can trade or not as they please.

[ QUOTE ]
Why should companies have fewer rights than the people that own those companies? You're saying people have a right, but by owning a company a person gives up that right?


[/ QUOTE ]
No, he does not give up his rights as long as he represents himself. When he represents the company there are other rules also in effect. Such as anti-discrimination laws.

[lehighguy]

Before I even continue to read on for more replies, that was HILARIOUS!

[tylerdurden]

So this isn't a buyer vs. seller issue at all, it's a company vs. individual issue.

What if there's no legal definition of "company"? You're dealing with a guy who has hotdogs. He might own the hotdogs himself, or he might be trading his labor to the hotdog owner, you're not sure. You have some shiny rocks that some people find valuable. You propose a number of rocks to be exchanged for a number of hotdogs, he says no. He proposes a number of hotdogs for a number of rocks, you say no.

Are both parties guilty of discrimination? Who is going to decide the "proper" rocks-to-hotdogs ratio and force the two parties to trade?

[lehighguy]

This gets better and better. I'm gonna let PVN do the heavy lifting here because he's doing such a good job.

Question: What is a company? Keep in mind that you've already determined the hot dog vendor represents a company.

This is of course only one train of thought pvn may go down, I see others he can play with but I have some errands to run.

[bobman0330]

Il Mostro, despite being named for a good movie, is really letting the team down here. The proper answer is that there is no distinction between buyers/sellers or companies/individuals. It's just a practical balance between the harms of discrimination and our moral indignation and enforcement costs. Seller discrimination is easy to spot because they usually advertise the conditions under which they'll be willing to make trades. Even if they don't, major sellers (those who concern us most because of their economic power) are generally repeat players, which makes it easy to determine whether they had discriminatory motives. (Especially since they can explain their non-discriminatory motives, if any.)

I think one point of disagreement may be the huge weight you put on the essentially semantic and trivial distinction between action and inaction.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Seller discrimination is easy to spot because they usually advertise the conditions under which they'll be willing to make trades

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens when this becomes harder to spot? Let's say the seller is at a flea market, where prices are often negotiated. A racial minority comes along and haggles with the vendor for a while, and eventually buys a shirt for $20. Ten minutes later a white guy buys the same shirt for $10. Should the government come down on this guy?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seller discrimination is easy to spot because they usually advertise the conditions under which they'll be willing to make trades

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens when this becomes harder to spot? Let's say the seller is at a flea market, where prices are often negotiated. A racial minority comes along and haggles with the vendor for a while, and eventually buys a shirt for $20. Ten minutes later a white guy buys the same shirt for $10. Should the government come down on this guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the conditions are too ambiguous to determine discrimination, then it should not be enforced.

[lehighguy]

Hence the fundamental policy issue of cost vs benefit when examining effectiveness.

I don't think the difference between action and inaction is semantic though. There seems a huge difference between someone telling me I can't kill anyone and someone telling me I must kill someone. At least in my mind the cost of one is higher.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Hence the fundamental policy issue of cost vs benefit when examining effectiveness.

I don't think the difference between action and inaction is semantic though. There seems a huge difference between someone telling me I can't kill anyone and someone telling me I must kill someone. At least in my mind the cost of one is higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the difference between being forbidden to kill someone and being forced to contribute to federal disaster relief?

[lehighguy]

The former is a much better law then the latter.

Not sure were your going with this.

[Il_Mostro]

huh? What are you talking about? The only thing I'm sure about is that you are not talking about what I am saying.

[ QUOTE ]
So this isn't a buyer vs. seller issue at all, it's a company vs. individual issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it is a difference between selling and buying.

[ QUOTE ]
What if there's no legal definition of "company"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, there is, isn't there?

[ QUOTE ]
You're dealing with a guy who has hotdogs. He might own the hotdogs himself, or he might be trading his labor to the hotdog owner, you're not sure. You have some shiny rocks that some people find valuable. You propose a number of rocks to be exchanged for a number of hotdogs, he says no. He proposes a number of hotdogs for a number of rocks, you say no.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying.

If this person would sell hotdogs to any white guy who offer him them he must also sell the hotdogs to any black guy who wants to buy.

[Il_Mostro]

I'm glad you are happy. Not sure what's so funny, but I assume I used bad wording or something.

[Il_Mostro]

I really don't understand this. Of course there is a difference between buying and selling.
If I buy my food at my local supermarket, am I then discrimitaing against the supermarket in New York since I'm not buying there?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand this. Of course there is a difference between buying and selling.
If I buy my food at my local supermarket, am I then discrimitaing against the supermarket in New York since I'm not buying there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not unless you chose your supermarket because of the race of the proprietor.

People are confusing enforcement problems with the desirability of the policy. I for one have no problem with forcing people to make buying decisions without regard to race. It would be a terrible law because of all the enforcement problems.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand this. Of course there is a difference between buying and selling.
If I buy my food at my local supermarket, am I then discrimitaing against the supermarket in New York since I'm not buying there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are discriminating against the New York supermarket. You are don't want to go there because it's too far. That is a form of rational discrimination. It is your right to make that discrimination.

People discriminate all the time, both rationally and irrationally. If someone choses to shop at supermarket that is far from their home, rather than shopping at a closer one because the farther one is cheaper, that is discrimination too. If the reason they go far away is because they don't like the name of the store, that seems less rational than to shop far away because of price. But hey, it's their decision.

Likewise when someone choses not to associate with a certain group of people because of their skin color, that is a form of irrational discrimination. It is unjust for us to make laws forcing this person to associate with people he doesn't want to just because his beliefs are irrational. They are still his beliefs, and they probably seem rational to him somehow. We can tell him he's wrong, and try to reason with him, but we have no right to force him to act against his own will.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I for one have no problem with forcing people to make buying decisions without regard to race.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious as to how far you would go with this idea. Is race the end, or would support laws that forced people to do business without regard to religion as well? Should someone who is vehemently anti-Christian be forced to sell products to Christian buyers? Should a Christian be forced to do business with an athiest or a Satanist?

I have many issues with the Mormom church. My convictions are not strong enough to dissuade me from dealing with a Mormon in a business relationship, but I certainly would not fault someone if they chose not to.

What if someone created their own wacky religion that specifically thought you were the devil? Many Black Muslims, for instance, think that white people are the devil. Should I have to trade with them?

[Il_Mostro]

You have a very strange definition of discrimination. If that is your definition, I am discriminating when I shop here and not in New York, then we will not get any further.

dictionary.com
discrimination

n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
You have a very strange definition of discrimination. If that is your definition, I am discriminating when I shop here and not in New York, then we will not get any further.

dictionary.com
discrimination

n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

[/ QUOTE ]

My definition of discrimination is not that strange. But we shouldn't let semantics get in the way of our discussion. By the standard definition of discrimination, you ARE in fact discriminating whenever you make any decision. You are talking specifically about prejudicial discrimination.

BTW, on dictionary.com, you passed by the first two entries of discrimination until you found one that made your point. The first two are:
1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

Merriam's dictionary says:
the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

Therefore any decision is discrimination. You are trying to argue that racial discrimination should be illegal. Let's get back to that.

[Benman]

[ QUOTE ]
The opportunity to acquire any market with little or no cost is so tempting it will never be ignored for long.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that blacks weren't allowed to sit at the lunch counter for many generations in the South. Why was that?

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The opportunity to acquire any market with little or no cost is so tempting it will never be ignored for long.


[/ QUOTE ]
Except that blacks weren't allowed to sit at the lunch counter for many generations in the South. Why was that?

[/ QUOTE ]
The market market didn't go unserved though -- blacks opened restaurants for blacks.

Why? Intimidation that went unchallenged. People exercising a right to associate freely. It still goes on today -- go to Club 21 in NYC and compare the people let through the door to those on the street. There are a lot of "private" clubs in todays world whose members don't reflect the community -- they discriminate on wealth, appearance, beliefs, education, ...

[lehighguy]

Your not following the arguement at all. Try again.

[lehighguy]

Watching you arguement is like watching someone play twister, and eventually it'll come tumbling down.

You can't see it because your a part of the joke. It's really only funny to those of us who can observe it objectively.

[RacersEdge]

In some ways you can discriminate - look at Hooters - they only hire young women. So they discriminate based on age and sex.

[Benman]

It's illegal to discriminate in a place of public accomodation, like a restaurant, because its offensive for a racist restaurant owner to expect the tax dollars of black citizens to be used to put out his fires and arrest bad guys that skip their checks.

[Benman]

[quote} Why? Intimidation that went unchallenged. People exercising a right to associate freely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean that the blacks themselves didn't challenge the intimidation against them, or that restaurant owners caved in to others?

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Intimidation that went unchallenged.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you mean that the blacks themselves didn't challenge the intimidation against them, or that restaurant owners caved in to others?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both. Blacks not challenging the intimidation could be understood -- but remember-- when they finally found a way to be heard, it was through the market in the Montgomery Bus Boycott -- it was the market that gave them a voice, not the government.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
it was the market that gave them a voice, not the government.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's easliy argued that the gov't made it worse. How many civil rights leaders were thrown in jail or attacked for protesting peacefully?

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
How many civil rights leaders were thrown in jail or attacked for protesting peacefully?

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. But nothing could silence the protestors when they chose to impact a market everyone depended on.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
If there are no links between the members of a society (ie social links), then this is not a society we are dealing with -- and that's, I submit, by definition.

What part of this do you not understand ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus, the social connections of government are not the only kind. You are committing an egregious fallacy with your position. I urge to reconsider.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
If there are no links between the members of a society (ie social links), then this is not a society we are dealing with -- and that's, I submit, by definition.

What part of this do you not understand ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus, the social connections of government are not the only kind. Furthermore, disconnections within a society may certainly exist, even though as a whole we have a society.

You are committing an egregious fallacy with your position. I urge to reconsider.

natedogg

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes you interact with businesses, or government. But you never interact with society.


[/ QUOTE ]
When you interact with other people - and businesses and government - you interact, in fact, with (the rest of) society.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't interact with relations.

[/ QUOTE ]
You enter into relations; you do not "interact" with relations. (Although, you can study them and analyze them and possibly change them; analysis is also a form of interaction. But leave that aside for now.)

Here's what I wrote again : "Society is made up of two components: its members and the relations between them." That's a rough but accurate definitions of society. You wish to find yourself outside it but, for better or worse, that would be an exercise in self-deception.

[ QUOTE ]
You live in a "society" but you also live in a "universe" or a "neighborhood".

[/ QUOTE ]
I fail to see the relevance. Man exists in the cosmos (universe). People who live in urban areas, also get to live in a neighborhood. Practically every man on Earth lives in a society.

Even the most ardent Rothbard fan... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Looking at "societal interactions" rather than actual, real interactions between discrete entities (people, businesses, etc) will give you screwy results, such as doing things that oppress individuals in the name of doing "good for society".

[/ QUOTE ]
Interactions between people and businesses are societal interactions! Just read my rough definition, again.

Methinks you fear too much. Simple entering into a social interaction with someone does not create tyranny by itself. (What is this, social-phobia? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

Libertarians begin from a clear-headed and healthy point of view, one of instictive distrust of State (kratos) but then, especially the American strain of Libertarianism, quickly goes downhill into a most vulgar application of the capitalist creed into all human endeavors (e.g. Sheetwise's example of "how the free market deals with racism"), the right to bear arms, and other such affairs.

Someone charmingly wrote here about the right to bare arms, by the way.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Watching you arguement is like watching someone play twister, and eventually it'll come tumbling down.

You can't see it because your a part of the joke. It's really only funny to those of us who can observe it objectively.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly. But I must say I feel much the same about you and pvn, so how about you start making arguments about why you are correct?

[Il_Mostro]

I belive I am. And, to use and Angeloesk sentence, if the reader can't understand the writer it is never the readers fault.

So either start explaining or keep your mouth shut.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The social connections of government are not the only kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only kind ? I never said that.

I wrote that society is its members and the interactions between them. Without the one or the other, you have no society, by definition (my definition). If you disagree with my definition, please give me your own.

[ QUOTE ]
Disconnections within a society may certainly exist, even though as a whole we have a society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "disconnections".

If you are referring to "bad" interactions (eg mass looting), these are still interactions.

Are you talking about some exceptional, rather utopian, isolation of a citizen? The mere fact that a person, locked up for decades in his basement, turns on the light, proves he is really not totally self-sufficient ("disconnected"?)but depends on the rest of society to get by. Practically everyting we do involves social interactions.

This should not mean that society is bad in itself!

What we should be apprehensive about is State (kratos) and not ..ourselves!

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes you interact with businesses, or government. But you never interact with society.


[/ QUOTE ]
When you interact with other people - and businesses and government - you interact, in fact, with (the rest of) society.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's obviously wrong. I can only interact with one person at a time. Sometimes I can interact with many people in rapid succession, but still only one at a time.

When you pour a glass of milk, you're not drinking a gallon of milk. You don't even drink a whole glass at once. You drink it one gulp at a time.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I can only interact with one person at a time. Sometimes I can interact with many people in rapid succession, but still only one at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interaction with other members of a society (or of other societies) takes places in many forms. Some are one to one (make love to, talk to, discuss with, etc). Others are between one and many persons, or between many persons (public speaking, displaying one's work of art, writing a newspaper article, voting in the parliament, etc).

Furthermore, when I pay my bills to my landlord, I am also interacting with him - even if I just deposit the rent to his bank account.

Trying to prove that a person can actually live a life without interacting with the rest of society is quite ludicrous. Total isolation could perhaps begin to approach that strictly hypothetical status that Libertarians claim as possible.

[ QUOTE ]
When you pour a glass of milk, you're not drinking a gallon of milk. You don't even drink a whole glass at once. You drink it one gulp at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but after you take in those gulps, one gulp at a time, you will have drank a whole gallon of milk.

Same way we speak or write. We write down our text word by word, letter by letter. The sum of those parts, the whole, is something different and above the squiggly ink notations we have drawn on the paper -- and it is the meaning which we want to express and convey through our text.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you pour a glass of milk, you're not drinking a gallon of milk. You don't even drink a whole glass at once. You drink it one gulp at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but after you take in those gulps, one gulp at a time, you will have drank a whole gallon of milk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in one action.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

The libertarianism in this thread is borderline racist and is pretty disgusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you writing this is disgusting.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[In a free society] [i]sn't it in my right to discriminate against a group or race?

[/ QUOTE ]
In a free society, isn't it my right not to be discriminated against?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Interaction with other members of a society (or of other societies) takes places in many forms. Some are one to one (make love to, talk to, discuss with, etc). Others are between one and many persons, or between many persons (public speaking, displaying one's work of art, writing a newspaper article, voting in the parliament, etc).

Furthermore, when I pay my bills to my landlord, I am also interacting with him - even if I just deposit the rent to his bank account.

Trying to prove that a person can actually live a life without interacting with the rest of society is quite ludicrous. Total isolation could perhaps begin to approach that strictly hypothetical status that Libertarians claim as possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

Society is beneficial to most people who interact with it. The part where you and I probably disagree is our place in society and what we "owe" to our society for taking a part in it.

Interaction with society should be a completely voluntary decision, and there should be no hidden costs that come with it. If I pay bills to my landlord, I'm not agreeing to some made-up social contract. I'm paying what I owe to my landlord based on an actual contract that I agreed to. I owe society nothing, and society owes me nothing. Through my business transactions, friendships, and speech, society benefits from me and I benefit from society. To say that I owe something extra to "society" above and beyond our mutually helpful relationship is wrong.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, should they have the right to discriminate and effectively force you to move?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're framing this as a false dichotomy. They have the right to discriminate, but they aren't forcing you to move.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. (Isn't that how you love to start your posts?)

I framed my question to directly reflect your earlier assertion that government "should not be permitted to discriminate, since the people that are oppressed by it can't avoid 'doing business' with it."

I'm saying that's also true for a general store that is the only one around in a poor rural area: the people can't avoid doing business with it.

You also stated "Saying that one can move is not a valid counter to this argument, even in situations where free movement is allowed because this places restrictions on one's property rights."

I'm stating the same thing here for a discriminating general store: saying that one can move is not a valid argument.

-ptmusic

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that's also true for a general store that is the only one around in a poor rural area: the people can't avoid doing business with it.

You also stated "Saying that one can move is not a valid counter to this argument, even in situations where free movement is allowed because this places restrictions on one's property rights."

I'm stating the same thing here for a discriminating general store: saying that one can move is not a valid argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can avoid doing business with the store, as I have already mentioned. Internet, commute to another store, have a friend do business on your behalf, make/grow your own goods, or you can move to friendlier place. None of these options are being forced upon you.

The general store is really doing nothing to you. Its existence does not in any way harm you. At worst, its presence has no effect on your life. You wish to force the store to serve your needs, which is wrong. If the owner wishes to do business with you, then you may do business. Otherwise, imagine the store just doesn't exist. What if you lived out in the middle of nowhere where no stores exist? Are you being forced to move? Should the government then force stores to open where you live so that you may use them?

Government, on the other hand, is unavoidable. They force you do business with them.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that's also true for a general store that is the only one around in a poor rural area: the people can't avoid doing business with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

You can avoid doing business with it. You can compete.

[ QUOTE ]
You also stated "Saying that one can move is not a valid counter to this argument, even in situations where free movement is allowed because this places restrictions on one's property rights."

I'm stating the same thing here for a discriminating general store: saying that one can move is not a valid argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, which is why "if you don't like it, move" isn't my arguement. My arguement is "if you don't like it, compete."

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that's also true for a general store that is the only one around in a poor rural area: the people can't avoid doing business with it.

You also stated "Saying that one can move is not a valid counter to this argument, even in situations where free movement is allowed because this places restrictions on one's property rights."

I'm stating the same thing here for a discriminating general store: saying that one can move is not a valid argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can avoid doing business with the store, as I have already mentioned. Internet, commute to another store, have a friend do business on your behalf, make/grow your own goods, or you can move to friendlier place. None of these options are being forced upon you.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I already said, this is an area of poor people. Hence, no internet, no commute, and all your friends are in the same boat.

Moving to a friendlier place is quite a presumption for poor people. "You live in the poor South - why don't you just move?" It's a lot easier said than done. And as pvn correctly stated, "If you don't like it, leave" is not a good argument. If that is your only option, as I suggest it is here, then that is unfair.

I agree, you could start to do everything the stores used to do, but that would be an extreme hardship. How are you going to learn all the skills to be a carpenter and a clothier and a dairy farmer and a ... fast enough to survive?

But away from hypotheticals and back to reality:

allowing racial discrimination to exist in public places is racist in and of itself. Part of life, part of humanity, is helping our fellow man. When we allow wrongs to exist, we are helping no one.

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that's also true for a general store that is the only one around in a poor rural area: the people can't avoid doing business with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

You can avoid doing business with it. You can compete.

[ QUOTE ]
You also stated "Saying that one can move is not a valid counter to this argument, even in situations where free movement is allowed because this places restrictions on one's property rights."

I'm stating the same thing here for a discriminating general store: saying that one can move is not a valid argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, which is why "if you don't like it, move" isn't my arguement. My arguement is "if you don't like it, compete."

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I can agree with that. But you are presuming the discriminated CAN "compete".

Anyway, I can't believe you actual believe that racial discrimination should be allowed in today's world. Has our thinking and our ideals not moved on?

-ptmusic

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I can agree with that. But you are presuming the discriminated CAN "compete".

[/ QUOTE ]

What's stopping them?

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I can't believe you actual believe that racial discrimination should be allowed in today's world. Has our thinking and our ideals not moved on?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you actually believe that telling other people what to do should be allowed. I'm not saying that individuals should "put up" with it - feel free to ostracize or avoid these people, but *coercing* them to act in a particular way is unacceptable. Financial pressure: good. Violent pressure: bad.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]

What's stopping them? [From competing]

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you sugest they go about it? Where do they get the money to start up a competing business?

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]

How do you sugest they go about it? Where do they get the money to start up a competing business?

[/ QUOTE ]

Loan. Or, if we are to assume the only bank in the area is racist as well (which I'm sure is the next step in this progression, however unlikely), then they can form a self-sufficient community amongst themselves, excluding or including whomever they want.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Loan.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know about the US, but around here it's very difficult to get a substantial loan if you don't have assets.
[ QUOTE ]
self-sufficient community amongst themselves, excluding or including whomever they want.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you yourself belive that's possible today?

[lehighguy]

"I don't know about the US, but around here it's very difficult to get a substantial loan if you don't have assets."

I don't know about 50 years ago, but today they issue dead people credit all of the time. We have what could be described as one of the most accomidating credit policies in the world.

[Il_Mostro]

Yes, I agree. It's the same here, but that is not really the normaity. And even with this accomodating lending business it's still difficult to get a substantial loan, the kind you would need to start a competing business.

[tylerdurden]

In this hypothetical world where you have this poor community and only one retail outlet that refuses to serve them, two questions:

1) How did this situation arise? They must have been trading with SOMEONE at some previous point.

2) Why isn't anyone else moving in to fill the market need? I guess you can keep piling conditionals on, like "everyone in the universe is racist" if you want, but the question quickly becomes uninteresting. The core of this question is "what are the barriers to entry in this market?"

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't anyone else moving in to fill the market need? I guess you can keep piling conditionals on, like "everyone in the universe is racist"

[/ QUOTE ]
No need to do that. You just need to say that the people who would need someone "else moving in to fill the market need" are to few and to poor to represent a good business prospect. Then what?

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
In this hypothetical world where you have this poor community and only one retail outlet that refuses to serve them, two questions:

1) How did this situation arise? They must have been trading with SOMEONE at some previous point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Rothbard teach you to pay attention in class? In my setup, I mentioned how a store like WalMart came into the area, and beat all the other stores away, so it became the only retailer for the area. THEN this sole retailer began discriminating. So yes, the customers were trading with someone at some previous point, but that doesn't help them now.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Why isn't anyone else moving in to fill the market need? I guess you can keep piling conditionals on, like "everyone in the universe is racist" if you want, but the question quickly becomes uninteresting. The core of this question is "what are the barriers to entry in this market?"

[/ QUOTE ]

You want to talk Porter's Five Forces, smartypants? The Barriers to Entry are HIGH! This sole retailer is obviously excellent at this game, and no one wants to compete - they know they'll get crushed like the others did. No one is even capable of competing without an enormous amount of resources backing them up, hence the high barriers to entry.

But you're about to say: now that the sole retailer has become racist, many customers are available and another store would not have to compete with WalMart directly for their business. There are two problems:

1. Those discriminated against may be a small minority, and therefore it's not worth it for a store to enter the market.

2. Even if a store did enter the market to compete, WalMart could (and likely would) easily stop its discrimination temporarily to beat them out of the area again.

-ptmusic

[tylerdurden]

Geez. That's complicated. Like I said, you can concoct these elaborate what-if scenarios, but they're very uninteresting because they bear no resemblance to reality.

If XYZ-Mart ran everyone out of business then shut out part of their market, and then ABC-mart shows up to service the discriminated minority, and XYZ-mart drops their racist policy, do you think the discriminated minority will patronize XYZ-mart until ABC-mart goes out of business?

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Geez. That's complicated. Like I said, you can concoct these elaborate what-if scenarios, but they're very uninteresting because they bear no resemblance to reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not very complicated, professor. You're a smart guy /images/graemlins/wink.gif . Store moves in to poor area, beats out competition, then starts discriminating.

Why are you saying it's uninteresting now? You've already replied to many posts about this same scenario which I set up much earlier in the thread. You certainly have shown interest, unless you're just posting what you don't believe for shnits and giggles.

And no resemblance to reality? Are you kidding me? (You don't have to start your next post with "No".)

First of all, none of your no-government-utopia posts have any resemblance to reality.

Secondly, racism usually works in a similar way to what I described: racist people hide their racist tendencies and don't discriminate when they need to interact with those they hate. When they don't need to interact with those they hate, their racist behaviour shows up.

[ QUOTE ]
If XYZ-Mart ran everyone out of business then shut out part of their market, and then ABC-mart shows up to service the discriminated minority, and XYZ-mart drops their racist policy, do you think the discriminated minority will patronize XYZ-mart until ABC-mart goes out of business?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely: how do you think XYZ-mart beat out the competition in this low-cost leader business? By pricing their products lower than the guy down the street. It would do it again, and poor people would choose the lowest price, like they do everywhere in the world today.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely: how do you think XYZ-mart beat out the competition in this low-cost leader business? By pricing their products lower than the guy down the street. It would do it again, and poor people would choose the lowest price, like they do everywhere in the world today.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe this. If I was discriminated against at a particular store, I would probably never go back no matter what they charged. Do you think poor people have no principals? Or that their all idiots?

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely: how do you think XYZ-mart beat out the competition in this low-cost leader business? By pricing their products lower than the guy down the street. It would do it again, and poor people would choose the lowest price, like they do everywhere in the world today.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe this. If I was discriminated against at a particular store, I would probably never go back no matter what they charged. Do you think poor people have no principals? Or that their all idiots?

[/ QUOTE ]

To a certain extent, you're right. Of course, poor people have principles regarding racism.

But in many cases, survival instinct takes over. Why have people suffered through racism for centuries, even when slavery isn't involved? The answer is they need get food and clothing for the family, and low prices will allow them to do that better than higher prices. Putting family principles before racism principles is part of being a human being.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

You're implying that poor people are too stupid to realize that the discriminatory company will continue its racist policies once the upstart company is eliminated. Do really believe poor people are that dumb? Pretty condescending if you ask me...

I think you also underestimate the reaction of everyone else who would patronize the racist store. Would you? Even for lower prices? Being openly discriminatory would not only drive away those they discriminated against but most other people as well.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
You're implying that poor people are too stupid to realize that the discriminatory company will continue its racist policies once the upstart company is eliminated. Do really believe poor people are that dumb? Pretty condescending if you ask me...

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are underestimating the ability of the poor people to realize that XYZ-mart is going to beat out the competition just like they did before.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you also underestimate the reaction of everyone else who would patronize the racist store. Would you? Even for lower prices? Being openly discriminatory would not only drive away those they discriminated against but most other people as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

So openly discriminatory people and businesses have never thrived, eh?

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
And you are underestimating the ability of the poor people to realize that XYZ-mart is going to beat out the competition just like they did before.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, not only would most poor people boycott the store, but many who were not poor would to. Would you boycott such a store? I certainly would, no matter what their prices were. Somehow I think almost everyone on this board would boycott an openly discriminatory store. I think this is true for most people in this country.

[ QUOTE ]
So openly discriminatory people and businesses have never thrived, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure they have. Again, would you patronize such a store? You never answered that question. Somehow my guess is that you wouldn't, even for lower prices. What makes you think that you and I are the only people who would feel that way and that that collective pressure would either create a new store or force the discriminatory company to change it's policies?

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you are underestimating the ability of the poor people to realize that XYZ-mart is going to beat out the competition just like they did before.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, not only would most poor people boycott the store, but many who were not poor would to. Would you boycott such a store? I certainly would, no matter what their prices were. Somehow I think almost everyone on this board would boycott an openly discriminatory store. I think this is true for most people in this country.

[ QUOTE ]
So openly discriminatory people and businesses have never thrived, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure they have. Again, would you patronize such a store? You never answered that question. Somehow my guess is that you wouldn't, even for lower prices. What makes you think that you and I are the only people who would feel that way and that that collective pressure would either create a new store or force the discriminatory company to change it's policies?

[/ QUOTE ]

We're both making assumptions. We both could point out examples of people ignoring racism (and shopping anyway) and people boycotting racism.

The important point here goes back to the original topic of anti-discrimination laws. If we think racism is wrong (which you have just stated you do), and you believe that racism can thrive (which you also just stated is true), then we who are able to see the evil in racism should support laws that fight against it.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If we think racism is wrong (which you have just stated you do), and you believe that racism can thrive (which you also just stated is true), then we who are able to see the evil in racism should support laws that fight against it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If "we" see the evil of racism and there are enough of "us" to support such laws, why not take the route where everyone's freedom is perserved? The company is free to be discriminatory and the rest of "us" are free to withhold our money from said company. If the company fails to see the error of its ways and correct its policy, then it does so at its own peril.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
So openly discriminatory people and businesses have never thrived, eh? --ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And you are underestimating the ability of the poor people to realize that XYZ-mart is going to beat out the competition just like they did before.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to understand this.

Parse.

"And you are underestimating" = I understand

"XYZ-mart is going to beat out the competition just like they did before." = WalMart will beat out the competition.

First composite: I understand the ability of the poor people to realize that WalMart will beat out the competition.

Second try -

"ability of the poor people" = poor peoples ability

"to realize that " = to know

"beat out the competition." = win

Second composite: I understand the poor peoples ability to know WalMart will win.

Third try --

"ability to know" = A property of people. They must be alive. We are talking about people. DELETE or replace with "comprehend"

Third composite: I understand the poor peoples comprehend WalMart will win.

I can't make sense of this. Help me.

[ptmusic]

The poor people of the area have previously seen XYZ-mart crush and drive away its competitors. Thus, if another company comes into the area, the poor people know that this new company will likely lose to XYZ-mart also.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

The poor people saw a company that wasn't discriminatory at the time "crush" its competition. The situation is not the same however, as many will now not patronize the discriminatory company and will instead patronize the new company. Do you agree with this statement?

[SheetWise]

There are several examples of monopolistic power in the last century -- Sears in dry goods retailing, A&P in retail grocery, and Microsoft in software. Sears was just purchased by K-Mart, A&P is a footnote in history books, and Microsoft is scrambling for an exit/survival strategy. If you don't see a monopoly as an opportunity to succeed, you don't understand capitalism -- OTSH, if you don't see government regualtion/oversight of a monopoly as a barrier to entry, you don't understand capitalism.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Geez. That's complicated. Like I said, you can concoct these elaborate what-if scenarios, but they're very uninteresting because they bear no resemblance to reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not very complicated, professor. You're a smart guy /images/graemlins/wink.gif . Store moves in to poor area, beats out competition, then starts discriminating.

Why are you saying it's uninteresting now? You've already replied to many posts about this same scenario which I set up much earlier in the thread. You certainly have shown interest, unless you're just posting what you don't believe for shnits and giggles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It became uninteresting when it became clear you were going to keep tacking on "but what if" after any possible outcome.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, racism usually works in a similar way to what I described: racist people hide their racist tendencies and don't discriminate when they need to interact with those they hate. When they don't need to interact with those they hate, their racist behaviour shows up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does Racist-Mart "need" to interact with the minority when there is competition? Why do they suddenly not want the minority's business when they're the only game in town (i.e. when they're guaranteed to get it). What's preventing the upstarts from fairly competing with Racist-Mart?

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely: how do you think XYZ-mart beat out the competition in this low-cost leader business? By pricing their products lower than the guy down the street.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can't just do this arbitrarily (and stay in business). What are they doing that the upstarts can't do?

[r3vbr]

Hey, I'm surprised on the ammount of replies on this thread. Didn't have time to read them all but I see some people just can't change their "small and closed" minds about this subject.

Also please note that I'm not racist although I don't think it's "wrong" by nature. It's like homossexuality... I know people think or live differently than I do and I don't condemn nor accept their actions, I simply don't care, as long as they dont harm me.

And not providing service does not fall under the defenition of "harm".

The statement "I have the right to not be discriminated against"
is EXACTLY the same thing as saying:
"I have the right to be loved by everyone"

and then maybe propose a law that people like eachother.. and that everyone gets a card at valantines day and a birthday cake, so we can all be happy at fantasyland.

Sad but true, people sometimes hate each other and that's just the way things are. I for one, hate that fat Michael Moore fellow (because he exploits peoples sentimentalism to pass his political agenda based on false logic) so I am exercising my right to DISCRIMINATE against Michael Moore and not buy his DVDs etc. The day I open a restaurant I will probably ban him from that as well, and get in trouble with the badly made laws.