tolerating unequal outcomes

[Belk]

Pot, meet kettle.






Let's remember that for next time Christians are discriminated against, and *some people* shrug it off.



Link, or it didn't happen.



I agree with you - just pointing out that the bolded part (which was mine) has happened many times to Christians, with liberals shrugging it off as "Hey, of course. They're dangerous fundamentalists".

According to whom? I guess for you it did not happen.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

According to whom? I guess for you it did not happen.

Well, you DID say that you were a burglar in that one thread a couple of days ago....



PS: For those who aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer: NO, I did not see Belk say any such thing, nor have do I have any reason to suspect this is the case! I was making the point that when you say someone said something, you BACK IT UP with references to them saying this.

 

[variant]

What is unethical about it?

Depriving people of opportunities because you wish to harm them and for no other reason?

It is unethical both in that it leads to bad outcomes and that it is done via malice, an intent to harm.

waht difference does that make? I have the right to associate with who I please. If I choose not to associate with you for stupid reasons, that is my right. You dont get to decide who I associate with or who I wish to do business with.

I did not say I did. Not in all cases at least. I am definitely for forcing you when there is a systematic harm to a specific group like black people, or specific religions and such, but those are to correct mass systematic social harm.

There are plenty of things I consider unethical wrong and imprudent that I won't deny to people.

I suppose if you actually think about it, the market would and already has sorted that sort of thing out.

If I think about it I can remember the actual historical government involvement in ending things like segregation.

I don't remember the free market leading the charge they do do a good job of following it up nicely though.

I shouldnt need to remind a liberal of the main reason for their hatred of business--that they are motivated by money. That motivation for money drives 99% of business to hire people they might not otherwise associate with because it will make them more money.

What do we do about the problems caused when businesses can make money by specifically hurting a group of people?

Funny how you are terrified of 'economic coersion' by free people but unconcerned about state coersion. Its not like the state has ever done anything bad ever in the history of the world.

That is a mis-caricterization of my position. I am terrified of anyone who has enough power to abuse.

False. I defend everyones liberty equally. That some may prosper more in a free society is a burden to you, not me. I dont let envy get the better of me.

False, the people who will live in your ghettos will be doomed to economic subservience for generations.

Human liberty and individual rights didnt work well in the past? Thats news to me. Servitude worked out so much better I presume.

An unregulated economic system driven purely on the free market does not work very well no.

Economic liberty is the freedom to achieve your own level of economic success bsed upon your own ability and effort. Good to see we suport the same thing.

I do not support it in absolute, that is the difference.

 

[variant]

Pot, meet kettle.

Oh yeah? Would it surprise you that I get along swimmingly with the conservatives I work with?

Passionately disagreeing with others about ideas is no good reason to be vindictive in ones actions towards others.

Let's remember that for next time Christians are discriminated against, and *some people* shrug it off.

Who said anything otherwise?

 

[Belk]

Well, you DID say that you were a pedophile in that one thread a couple of days ago....



PS: For those who aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer: NO, I did not see Belk say any such thing, nor have do I have any reason to suspect this is the case! I was making the point that when you say someone said something, you BACK IT UP with references to them saying this.

Whatever floats your boat COC. You can believe me or not. Though you might wish to edit your post since it is against forum rules. Personally it does not bother me.

 

[kermit]

What is unethical about it?

Your inability to recognize a lack of business ethics is both unsurprising and ironic. It's ironic because the very libertarian ideals you claim to support can only function with a very high level of business ethics.

In this case, hiring or not that is not based on solid business reasons is a violation of business ethics.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Whatever floats your boat COC. You can believe me or not. Though you might wish to edit your post since it is against forum rules. Personally it does not bother me.

So you think it's cool to just accuse people of saying things without proving this?
Note, that I did not say you were not correct. I was merely asking you to prove that you ARE correct, by linking to the relevant post. If he did indeed say what you claim he said, that should be a small matter, right?

 

[Belk]

So you think it's cool to just accuse people of saying things without proving this?
Note, that I did not say you were not correct. I was merely asking you to prove that you ARE correct, by linking to the relevant post. If he did indeed say what you claim he said, that should be a small matter, right?

It would entail searching through his past posts and tracking it down, assuming it has not been deleted. If I was really that worried that the people on this board thought I was misrepresenting him I might even be motivated to do so. However, it really is just not that important to me.

However if you feel really strongly about it you can wade through his past posts and search it down. Or if Bricklayer objects to it and feels I have done harm to his reputation I will do so myself.

 

[lordbt]

Depriving people of opportunities because you wish to harm them and for no other reason?

It is unethical both in that it leads to bad outcomes and that it is done via malice, an intent to harm.

Me not hiring liberals (for example) is not me wishing to do them harm, it is me not wishing to associate with them. If i hire bricklayer over you simply because I prefer his politics and outlook on life, there is nothing unethical in that. Just because you dont like something doesnt make it unethical.

I did not say I did. Not in all cases at least. I am definitely for forcing you when there is a systematic harm to a specific group like black people, or specific religions and such, but those are to correct mass systematic social harm.

You might have an argument when it somes to blacks, but no other group. The issue here was bricklayers refusal to hire liberals. Again, that you find it distastful does not make it unethical.

There are plenty of things I consider unethical wrong and imprudent that I won't deny to people.

Me too. But this isnt one of them.


[

If I think about it I can remember the actual historical government involvement in ending things like segregation.

After thousands of years of endorsing slavery. Segregation is immoral if done by the force of the state. Voluntary segregation is perfectly fine.

I don't remember the free market leading the charge they do do a good job of following it up nicely though.

Free people and the free market did lead the charge. What is it do you think that lit a fire under politicians to act?

What do we do about the problems caused when businesses can make money by specifically hurting a group of people?

Give me an example.

That is a mis-caricterization of my position. I am terrified of anyone who has enough power to abuse.

The state can do far more harm than an 'evil' industrialist could ever dream of doing.

False, the people who will live in your ghettos will be doomed to economic subservience for generations.

You meran like the ghettos we have today? Or have they all disappeared and I just missed it.

I do not support it in absolute, that is the difference.

I know. You support it until you think that certain people have achieved too much. Then you employ the state to take from them what you want. Funny you see no ethical concerns there though.

 

[lordbt]

Your inability to recognize a lack of business ethics is both unsurprising and ironic. It's ironic because the very libertarian ideals you claim to support can only function with a very high level of business ethics.

In this case, hiring or not that is not based on solid business reasons is a violation of business ethics.

No its not. I actually made the case that it was a bad business practice, but there is nothing unethical about me not hiring you for reasons of my own. I wont hire people with a union backgroud, for example, because I have found them to be lazy and unproductive. that doesnt make me unethical, it make them of no real value to me. Not hiring people i dont value is perfectly ethical. If bricklayer wont hire liberals, that is his right and I see nothing unethical about it.

 

[Harpuia]

Sans it being unethical, I actually do get lordbt's point of view here. Not hiring liberals misses one out on a lot of productive people that will be hired by someone else (since last I checked political ideology is not correlated to performance) and said company is only hurting themselves in the long run.

Problem with it is if EVERY company or almost every company systematically follows the same problem. Then it doesn't matter if said person is productive or not. In fact, it doesn't matter what they do, they're not gonna get hired. This was partially why discrimination laws were created in the first place (in that case, racism) because the discrimination WAS systematic and it was more difficult for said minorities to succeed solely because the deck was actually stacked against them.

Can't go into business for themselves because no one trusts them and can't get hired by someone due to them discriminating them. Such laws are just a necessary thing especially atm IMO if one wants to follow practical philosophy.

 

[lordbt]

Sans it being unethical, I actually do get lordbt's point of view here. Not hiring liberals misses one out on a lot of productive people that will be hired by someone else (since last I checked political ideology is not correlated to performance) and said company is only hurting themselves in the long run.

Exactly.

Problem with it is if EVERY company or almost every company systematically follows the same problem.

But they wont, and dont, for the reason you just mentioned. It doesnt make good business sense. it is hard enough to find good employees out there as it is, and eliminating half of the employment pool right off the bat plus potentially alienating half your prospective customers is not a formula for success. Businesses, good and successful ones, see green and only green. The very thing liberals hate about them--that they are motivated by profit--prevent a widespread adherence to an anti-liberal hiring policy.

This was partially why discrimination laws were created in the first place (in that case, racism) because the discrimination WAS systematic and it was more difficult for said minorities to succeed solely because the deck was actually stacked against them
Can't go into business for themselves because no one trusts them and can't get hired by someone due to them discriminating them. Such laws are just a necessary thing especially atm IMO if one wants to follow practical philosophy.

.[/quote]Anti discrimination laws were necessary because the state had helped erect a society where one race had dominated another. It was a remedy to an injustice. Not a great remedy from a libertarian perspective, but there was really no other option.

 

[rturner76]

Exactly.


.

Anti discrimination laws were necessary because the state had helped erect a society where one race had dominated another. It was a remedy to an injustice. Not a great remedy from a libertarian perspective, but there was really no other option.[/QUOTE]

You mean the libertarian option was not the best option? How can that be?

 

[lordbt]

You mean the libertarian option was not the best option? How can that be?

The liberty option is always the best option for individual interaction. Segregation required a state solution because it was a state creation and an injustice codified into law by the state. Simply changing the law wasnt enough. There had to be a remedy for the damage it caused. That it continues today is another matter.

 

[variant]

Free people and the free market did lead the charge. What is it do you think that lit a fire under politicians to act?

That is rich. When it comes to segregation, many businesses were perfectly happy to enforce segregation rather than lead the charge against it.

It made them money because they catered to people who had money (white people) and kept out those without.

The "free market" didn't solve the problem protesters and activists lead the charge and were followed by by government action which is what really put the hammer down on it.

Give me an example.

One example of sincere economic coercion:

Truck system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you require more please ask.

The state can do far more harm than an 'evil' industrialist could ever dream of doing.

Depends on the circumstances.

You meran like the ghettos we have today? Or have they all disappeared and I just missed it.

No I'm talking about the much larger ones we see in the Guilded Age.

I know. You support it until you think that certain people have achieved too much. Then you employ the state to take from them what you want. Funny you see no ethical concerns there though.

I see plenty of ethical concern, I just know the consequences are worse to run the entirety of society for the benefit of very few. I know that no society will ever succeed if the grand majority of the people are set up to fail.

The rising tide MUST lift all boats (so we need boats). When it is just a flood fror most it leads to disaster.

 

[variant]

Exactly.

But they wont, and dont, for the reason you just mentioned. It doesnt make good business sense. it is hard enough to find good employees out there as it is, and eliminating half of the employment pool right off the bat plus potentially alienating half your prospective customers is not a formula for success. Businesses, good and successful ones, see green and only green. The very thing liberals hate about them--that they are motivated by profit--prevent a widespread adherence to an anti-liberal hiring policy.

So, when women were widely discriminated against in society it was the private sector itself that lead the charge to get women better educations, and acceptance as equal members of society?

Further, not hiring women because you are sexist isn't a moral/ethical failing? It doesn't harm them that you don't want to associate with them? And, it's something the private sector is going to fix without any government actions?

How about different ethnicities, or people who have a different religion? Was it the government that made people not want to associate themselves with such people?

For some reason I am just not buying your argument. A lot of this stuff was forced for good reason.

 

[JustABit]

Me not hiring liberals (for example) is not me wishing to do them harm, it is me not wishing to associate with them. If i hire bricklayer over you simply because I prefer his politics and outlook on life, there is nothing unethical in that. Just because you dont like something doesnt make it unethical.

I'm sure you disagree, but a lot of people see exclusion as a form of harm. If harm is unethical, then exclusion is unethical. Again, I understand you'll disagree that exclusion is form of harm. I think the person to ask in this case would be the excluded person.

I believe I understand you see rational self interest and the free markets solve this exclusion. Unfortunately I don't see the evidence for this position.

Free people and the free market did lead the charge. What is it do you think that lit a fire under politicians to act?

I'm curious about how you think free markets led the charge to desegregation and civil rights. Maybe I'm not following the conversation correctly. I also wonder if you can tell me what the role of communism was in the civil rights movement.

The state can do far more harm than an 'evil' industrialist could ever dream of doing.

Of course you're ignoring that when industrialists gain enough power, the industrialists become the state. This is why most of us are committed to democracy - so that if somebody overreaches, we have the means to peacefully remove that person. I like having this option over people to whom society grants power. Unfortunately I don't have this same choice when it comes to who has power derived through wealth.

I know. You support it until you think that certain people have achieved too much. Then you employ the state to take from them what you want. Funny you see no ethical concerns there though.

Wealth and society are tied together. A billionaire doesn't have his fortune without infrastructure, laws and especially the hard work of others. To me it seems natural that if a person reaps rewards from a society, then society has a right to ask for something in return. This isn't coercion, it's a mutually beneficial trade or reciprocity.

False. I defend everyones liberty equally. That some may prosper more in a free society is a burden to you, not me. I dont let envy get the better of me.

What if 50% of people died in their childhood due to malnourishment and disease while wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few individuals? I'm not saying this will happen with libertarianism, I'm merely asking at what point would inequality in distribution start to rub you the wrong way?

Also, don't make this about envy. This is about recognizing that there are groups in society that work very hard and get very little, or want to work but can't. You don't need to be in the disenfranchised group to recognize that this exists.

 

[Harpuia]

On a small scale position, I can see lordbt being right. I've always believed that on a small scale and given enough time, markets will correct themselves. Problem is, like in the case of segregation, there's just such a systematic problem there, and there are fears that if left to a "Gilded Age II" of sorts we're going to see a segregation based on something. Might not be race. But it'll be something. And those solutions to change will have to eventually return.

It's a cycle. And the more I look at it, the more I see (almost) every economic theory has its moments where it is needed. Anyone see FDR, WW2, and food/gas rationing? Woo, that would suuuuuuuuuck today.

 

[lordbt]

That is rich. When it comes to segregation, many businesses were perfectly happy to enforce segregation rather than lead the charge against it.

It made them money because they catered to people who had money (white people) and kept out those without.

The "free market" didn't solve the problem protesters and activists lead the charge and were followed by by government action which is what really put the hammer down on it.

Just so you know, it was 100 years between the end of the Civil War and the 'government puting the hammer down' in the form of Civil Rights legislation. It must be that sort of speedy action that keeps your love affair with the state alive.

One example of sincere economic coercion:

Truck system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you require more please ask.

I was actually hoping for something within the last two hundred years.

No I'm talking about the much larger ones we see in the Guilded Age.

And prior to the Guilded Age there was no poverty and no slums? Its amazing the things you can learn in internet exchanges.

I see plenty of ethical concern, I just know the consequences are worse to run the entirety of society for the benefit of very few. I know that no society will ever succeed if the grand majority of the people are set up to fail.

The grand majority of people are not set up to fail in a free society.

The rising tide MUST lift all boats (so we need boats). When it is just a flood fror most it leads to disaster.

Nice rhetorical finish, but meaningless.

 

[lordbt]

So, when women were widely discriminated against in society it was the private sector itself that lead the charge to get women better educations, and acceptance as equal members of society?

Further, not hiring women because you are sexist isn't a moral/ethical failing? It doesn't harm them that you don't want to associate with them? And, it's something the private sector is going to fix without any government actions?

How about different ethnicities, or people who have a different religion? Was it the government that made people not want to associate themselves with such people?

For some reason I am just not buying your argument. A lot of this stuff was forced for good reason.

To the extent to which government law, regulation or action is responsible for discrimination, there almost certainly has to be a government remedy. But if I dont want to hire women, or blacks, or jews, or whites, or italians or Christians or Muslims or people with blue eyes, that is my business, not younrs and not the states. So long as I am not violating anyones rights, the state has no moral authority to step in and use initiate the use of force against me.