Yes there is. In American history, when there were no anti-discrimination laws, sundown towns were extremely widespread.
I agree that this issue is at an impasse. For now, at least, I see no way I could possibly support libertarian policies with regards to Civil Rights.
I meant if we implemented a change today. I agree that there were unacceptable in the past and not just with sundown towns.
I know, but I think that counts as evidence (not proof) that without such anti-discrimination laws, we could see the return of sundown towns.
I think we’d have to pretty much dismantle the Constitution to make room for a Libertarian system. The discussion of the philosophy has revealed that Libertarianism doesn’t have good reasons to justify its implementation. The best reason I recall for adopting Libertarian civil rights is that “libertarians abhor government intervention.”
That’s all fine and dandy, but is nothing but an appeal to pathos, which, if that’s all you have, makes Libertarianism merely another faith that is barred from implementation due to the establishment clause. No one is threatening to take away libertarians’ freedom to abhor the government- abhor away! But try as I might, I can’t see any justification for allowing libertarians to deny freedom to citizens in this country based on their race, or sexual orientation, or what have you. That discussion seems to end in evasions and not-really-answers. I’m still paying attention though. I could still, of course, be wrong.
I don’t know. As I said above, the stated motives don’t seem to qualify as something that can be implemented in American policy without destroying more freedoms than it creates. Since the answers to the question, “but really, why?” seem so incomplete, and since the obvious consequences of this policy seem to get handwaved away without much serious investigation, I’m left seriously questioning the motives behind libertarian civil rights policy. Libertarians say it is all about freedom with their property, but I can’t see why that should extend to opening the door to obvious and serious abuses. The willful ignorance to me seems to be in elevating property rights to the point that all other values shrink to the vanishing point.
It isn’t a serious suggestion, no. But that is, in effect, what this policy is going to impose on whoever powerful libertarians consider to be riff-raff: there are no jobs, no housing, no services for you here. You have to move on. How would libertarians like to be forced to move? I do think they ought to go somewhere else if they want to discriminate based on race/religion/sexual orientation, regardless of the yak-yak accompanying it.
And then there is my fears concerning the intersection between the proposals in this thread and things like Citizens United and the removal of campaign contribution limits. I have an irrational fear that inappropriate entities such as the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia has a very large, unknown influence over the GOP, and that they would prefer libertarian civil rights so that they could buy up huge amounts of property, drive out all the riff-raff, and run their own sections of America as a form of sundown town where the women are all in veils, the Jews are all scared, and no prince ever has to be offended by the sight of black skin. Other foreign corporations or billionaire groups could do this too- we’d throw our minorities under the bus to accomodate foreign jerks. Meanwhile, civil rights are simply not supposed to be for sale, especially if the victim by no means consents to the transaction.
I feel like the libertarian justifications are an aristocrat’s justifications: a good answer doesn’t really matter, I’m the aristocrat here, so things are going to be my way because I say so, and anyone that doesn’t like it can suck it. As Louis XIV famously said, “I am the State.” I’d prohibit such a state of affairs in America.
Actually, no. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title ll is a piece of legislation, not part of the constitution.
That was not part of my hypothetical. In fact, if you assume that is the motive, then the hypothetical isn’t very good. The whole point of that hypothetical was to show that a restaurant owner can’t be said to “physically harm” someone by not serving them unless that person is also “physically harmed” when the business is shut down (could be for any reason, including the owner simply going out of business).
Well, aside from the fact that your premise is flawed, no it doesn’t. Not anymore than questioning the motives of free speech advocates who don’t want Neo-Nazis silenced. And before anyone objects because we need to protect all speech, it would seem that many countries (e.g. Germany and Canada) have restrictive speech laws that don’t seem to have turned them into suppressive states. One can imagine carefully crafted law (with the necessary constitutional amendment) that would silence the bad guys as those countries have done.
Your “mom” needs to have her snark meter re-calibrated.
Again, this is an absurd exaggeration. “No jobs, no housing” so move to <insert the name of your favorite country here> was never the situation even when the government itself was allowed to discriminate.
There are certainly arguments to be made against this particular Libertarian Policy, and folks like iiandyiii have done that. But you’re argument is based on factually incorrect information, false premises and strawmen. And a dash of snark that I’m sure you think is clever, but just makes your argument seem even sillier. And my reason for responding to it, despite the snark, is so that those reading at home can see.
[QUOTE=Bone]
I suppose we can agree to disagree on this point. I personally have been involved in multiple Fortune 100 companies and know that this type of risk assessment is common. The risk of employee lawsuits is significant and increases with the size of a business. Any business of size will always have ongoing lawsuits and a portion of those are precisely because there are protected classes. There will be plenty of business that are behaving badly and under our current legal framework are justified in being penalized. This has an effect on all other businesses - risk avoidance.
It takes the form of having all new employees watch pointless videos so in the event an incident occurs there could be blame shifting. It could impact hiring and firing and disciplinary action. It could affect whether or not you hold a person accountable for poor performance. I’ve been involved in business that will routinely pay all employees who are terminated between 1 an 6 months of salary to avoid lawsuits. Part of those are based on these protected class lawsuits.
Management being white males have nothing to do with this. It’s part of the business culture. I could only guess at the monetary impact both directly and in inefficiencies created by this system. I suspect it is quite large. You may disagree.
[/QUOTE]
Several points here: first, I’m not a businessman, but with respect to this specific topic, yes, I have experience with very large companies. Fortune top 20, I think, but don’t hold me to that. What I’m arguing is not that large companies aren’t worried about the possibility of discrimination lawsuits and investigations, or that this worry doesn’t lead to market inefficiency. What I’m pointing out is that anti-discrimination laws, because they operate in terms of classifications, which you’ve alternated acknowledging and disregarding, are in most cases by definition applicable to everyone (not in an ADA or pregnancy context, for instance). Race and gender, period, are the protected classes, which means that a discharged white employee is just as much of a litigation risk, in theory, as a black employee, and a male as much as a female, and so on. They can all sue if you fire them for those traits. The white male in your example could say “shit, bro, they fired me because I was white and they think whites are easier to fire!” and that’s a colorable claim of discrimination. He could win on that, if he proved it.
To the extent that there is marketplace friction caused by the choice between the white male employee and the “other” low-performing employee, then, it’s not because anti-discrimination laws exist. It’s not the idea of “protected classes.” It must be either that you or these companies misunderstand the operation of those protections, or that something else is going on in practice. I’m suggesting that the “something else” is obvious: the status quo is that employees who aren’t white males are always going to have an easy prima facie case of discrimination, because management is going to be chock-a-block with white males. If the entire VP level was occupied by Cuban women and Chinese guys and bisexuals, go ahead and fire the black lady if the white guy brings better meatballs to the potluck! It’s just that, er, well, that’s not what the VP level looks like. And as a result, this market friction is always going to look like it’s going in one direction in Fortune 500 companies* – don’t fire the ones who aren’t white guys! But what you’re pointing to as a loss of business freedom which is created by the anti-discrimination law can just as easily be framed as the line of demarcation between the discrimination a company would get away with, if it could, and the discrimination a company does actually get away with.
Alternatively, you could be suggesting that across the board, white males are better performers, so anti-discrimination laws require that lower performers be retained, or you could be suggesting that minority groups are inherently more litigious than majority groups, such that the risks are asymmetric in those ways. Otherwise, simply pointing to the hassle created by the laws is just another way of saying that anti-discrimination laws are not entirely ornamental, which wouldn’t really have been responsive to Miller’s point, since Miller was concerned about the actual harm anti-discrimination laws are or might be preventing.
- Because, as further evidence, I’d point to the fact that once you get outside that context, and start dealing with smaller companies under different atmospheric conditions, you find that there are plenty of claims along the lines of “the Koreans fired me because I’m white” or “the Dominicans don’t give any work to the Haitians” or “they only put women/gays/people with disabilities in management positions.”
Well, the difference there is free speech advocates can give convincing, rational reasons why it’s important to preserve speech rights even for the most reprehensible people.
You guys, on this subject? Not so much.
[quote=“Bone, post:333, topic:686118”]
I’m really trying to understand what point you’re trying to make but I’m not seeing it. I’ve responded to all direct questions so I hope you believe that there is no attempt to dodge.
It seems to me that you are saying if a business is allowed to discriminate, then they are allowed to enslave by extension and you are looking for how one can be prohibited and the other not while remaining consistent. Is that it?
[quote]
No, not at all. Discrimination does not equate to slavery. It was just that your model suggested that government intervention in the former was not okay, but in the latter it was.
Actually, the issue of consent between two parties does help me to see the internal consistency that I was missing. Sure, two people having a conversation on the street is a good analogy - I don’t have to talk to someone I don’t want to.
I just wanted to acknowledge that your explanation made sense, although it’s been a few days since I could respond.
Where it begins to break down for me is a situation where there is no realistic opportunity for mutual consent. As business exchanges expand from mutual interactions between two parties, I don’t see how the model could realistically hold up. For example, what if my street conversation is being up on a soap box ranting at a crowd? Do I get to demand that all Asian people are prevented from hearing me?
Can I have a standing “consent” if I am Hewlett Packard selling my product through Office Max that says I do not consent to my product being sold to Italians?
So, I can see the internal consistency of consent when we’re talking about a conversation on the street or a barman eying up people coming in the door. Beyond that, I start to buy it about as much as Atlantic Records buys the idea that two friends were consenting to sharing their albums with one another via Napster.
If prostitution was legalized, would prostitutes be forced to provide their services to all comers?
And perhaps even those that didn’t come.
If I understand correctly, no one is ever jailed for discrimination in hiring or public accomodation, correct? The only time non-discrimination was enforced by actual physical force was in desegregating public schools, correct?
I am quite certain that currently, violation of Civil Rights laws result in financial punishment and not jail time. Why is it ok for an employer to coerce employees to discriminate by threat of financial loss, but not ok for a government elected by the people to coerce employers to not discriminate by threat of financial loss? If the business owners don’t want to agree to obey all applicable laws when obtaining a business license (which is a contract just like employment), they are free to leave the country. There are no laws forbidding emigration in the US.
I also would like an answer to whether nonprofits can discriminate posed above.
If they discriminated on the basis of religion…I’d expect them to lose their business license, exactly the same way as any other business owner would.
If they refuse to serve dirty people, or really fat people, or unattractive people, they’d be on safe ground. (They’d be cutting deeply into their own potential profits, of course…)
You say you have experience in large companies - was that in hiring, firing, discipline, HR policy, legal compliance, financial accruals related to pending lawsuits, retention, severance policy, or anything related to the actual financial impact to the business? I only ask because in my experience these types of risk avoidance activities are quite prevalent.
Yes, in theory if a person is discharged or acted on adversely based on race, even if they were a 30 year old white male, they would have a claim. In reality the threat of a discrimination lawsuit outside of minority, female, age-based, or sexuality in some states is very low. Look, I support businesses acting within the law, whatever the law may be. Currently, no business may discriminate due to any protected classes. If businesses do this, they should be penalized in our current system. The impact on behavior on businesses that operate within the law is significant. Both in unnecessary inefficient behavior and risk avoidance, and increased costs defending nuisance suits.
You may disagree about the magnitude of the impact, or place different values on the costs and benefits, but at least do so without ignoring the position of your opposition. The reason why we think it’s important to preserve speech rights is because we value that over the potential negatives that such reprehensible speech engenders. We (John, myself, others) are saying that the value in allowing businesses to operate without interference, increased liberty, reduces market distortions, and greater recognition of property rights outweigh the potential negatives of allowing some folks to behave badly. The fact that you don’t agree doesn’t mean that your opposition has been silent.
How is your first paragraph related to anything in the 2nd or 3rd?
In addressing the 2nd paragraph - you’ve misstated the scenario as many others before you have done. An employer is not coercing employees by not hiring them or treating them adversely as long as it is within the confines of the law (under this proposition, the law would not include protected classes). The rest of the paragraph falls apart after that.
The government by nature is coercive. Some things they will do we agree upon. Others not. In this thread we’re discussing where that line should be drawn. A business license is not a contract just like employment, and most employment is not under contract, rather it is at-will. The thing is, people are free to leave the country if they obey all laws as well so I’m not sure why you think it’s necessary to point that out other than a poor attempt at snark.
Regarding non-profits - what makes you think non-profit business structure would even exist? I’m not sure how any others feel about this, and granted I’ve only given this tangential thought, but -the idea that government should favor certain businesses and not others based on some purported goal does not seem consistent with a limited government. I would probably abolish the entire non-profit business structure. Taxes should be designed to be the least intrusive and the minimum amount to satisfy the financial needs of the government. There would be no behavioral encouraging tax laws.
In any event, the difference between a non-profit and a for profit business are actually not that great in the macro sense. Each must grow to sustain the business. Each must pay competitive wages to attract talent. Their mission may be more narrow, but may not be. They don’t have net income, but instead retained earnings. In most respects, they can operate in a similar fashion as a for profit business and should do so for the financial viability of the business.
HP would need to resolve that with Office Max. If they agree to the terms of their reselling agreement, then so be it. If Office Max doesn’t want to adhere to HP’s terms, then HP would be free to either not sell to Office Max, or acquiesce. The consumer (Italians) are only dealing with Office Max (in this scenario).
I agree that this principle begins to be challenged when there is no opportunity for consent. This is what I and others have been saying for the extent of this thread. In situations where there is a cost imposed on someone or a group of folks that have no ability to consent that creates an externality. Pollution is the textbook example. In those instances, it is appropriate for the government to intervene. The nature of that intervention is a matter of policy, not philosophy.
**John **- I anxiously await topic #2 
And - Thank you for your acknowledgment - which I don’t construe as agreement
I’m an employment discrimination lawyer. I don’t think it’s terribly relevant to the discussion, but hopefully that satisfies your “familiarity with how companies deal with employment discrimination issues” criterion.
I won’t deny or contest your experience. The theory you discuss doesn’t align with the experiences I’ve had. I’m not aware of any actual study on risk avoidance by business due to anti-discrimination laws so I don’t think there’s more to go along those lines.
I sure do appreciate it.
I don’t think I’ve advanced a theory, though. It’s indisputable that charges of discrimination are filed both by minorities and “majorities,” and that most are filed by minorities. I’m simply pointing out that the inefficiencies caused by pressure to fire the white guys, to the extent that there is any, are dictated by perceptions and trends in the marketplace itself, not by the law. If white males were constantly suing because they felt constantly discriminated against, the same pressure would exist in the opposite direction without any change in the law. But they don’t. “All other things being equal” sidesteps this issue entirely in order to demonstrate that the anti-discrimination laws are irrationally causing friction, if we assume there’s not actual discrimination occurring.
Not really though. Free speech is allowed because mainstream society snuffs out the wackos.
The argument being presented by the libertarians in this thread is that, in 2014, mainstream society would of its own volition snuff out those that discriminate on racial bounds, even if it were legal to do so.
These are, in fact, two sides of the same coin. (That free societies, in the words of MLK, arc toward justice).
You’re right, you did give an actual argument for your position, and it was unfair of me to phrase my comment that broadly, when it was specific posters whose behavior I was criticizing.