![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mahnmut.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsHere we are again, with a new portion of ridiculously hyperbolized hypothetical situations taken from the [Poll #1837134]
Needless to say, the possible answers have been brought to extremities for some reason that I'm unaware of. (whistles innocently)
Needless to say, the possible answers have been brought to extremities for some reason that I'm unaware of. (whistles innocently)
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 18:49 (UTC)UGH!
I had to make my selection in the survey holding my nose.
#1 - Ms Love won't do, since history once had Black-Face comedies and minstrel shows.
There is a place and time for adult humor that is racy, but those forums need to be established in
places where kids wont mistake those shows for "the truth" of other people.
#2 - I do not support the notion of companies and corporations being allowed to discriminate against people,
ESPECIALLY if those entities receive public funds or tax breaks. Private companies currently have the "right"
to do this, but we dont want to make this an established blanket generalized "right" to do to the public, especially from companies that receive subsidies or tax breaks from the public coffers.
#3 - I ultimately had to support this one on general principle, but I **REALLY** do not like the idea of arresting people who refuse to hire individuals. They should be removed from their positions or even fired if they wont comply, but I dont like the notion of arrest.
HOWEVER, I like the idea of these people harming other people and their financial futures even LESS, so I supported this option but only while holding my nose and with great reluctance.
#4 - Government indoctrination? NEXT! No more needs to be said on this one...
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 18:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 19:25 (UTC)That said I am not morally opposed to government forcing publicly traded corporations whose stockholders enjoy limited liability protections to do pretty much anything they like as part of the cost of those protections and so can support a system where publicly held companies are legally barred from discriminating but privately held ones can adopt whatever hiring practices, discriminatory or not, that they wish.
This leaves me generally supporting Mr Pubicus even if I find his rhetorical approach to the issue to be distasteful at best much closer to outright offensive and counterproductive.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 19:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 19:34 (UTC)It remains unclear how exactly that would happen.
(no subject)
Date: 30/4/12 19:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 19:40 (UTC)YEAH! Just look how easy it was to do in the South in 1964!
I only took the free market...and the National Guard...and the NAACP... and at times Federal Troops
But look at what the **Free Market** accomplished!!
, but frankly government mandates have not proven any quicker and you will be far more likely to get the peoples attitudes to change in the "right" way if you let them arrive at those conclusions on their own rather than cramming them down their throats
YEAH!! After only 400 years of Slavery -- I'm SURE people were on the verge of changing their minds!
and as such find anti discrimination laws to be largely overkill
And you're a minority again in *what* way, sir? You would know this HOW?
I am wondering how ignoring a few hundred years of history, especially the most recent 60 years of the U.S.
somehow leads you to support a position...
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 19:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 20:50 (UTC)Now show an instance where discrimination flourished and grew under an actual free market situation, also provide evidence that anti discrimination laws have performed better than simply creating a legal free market in degrading the institutions of slavery and discrimination over time.
You will also note I did not say that a market situation would magically create a utopia where everyone lives in harmony and discrimination disappears overnight, I said that it would do just about exactly as well at weakening discrimination over time as government action.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 20:59 (UTC)Pure intent on a free market exists only in the fairy tale books of Ayn Rand. Show me an instance where a free market has created a discrimination-free environment and we can talk.
So free market would bring the same result like government? That's a refreshing change from the usual "gubmint=bad" mantra that I keep hearing from libertarians as if it's some kind of broken record.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 21:55 (UTC)The government did not enforce segregation or slavery at the expense of the magical hand of the market. A large number of the people who made up the market WANTED those things.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 22:28 (UTC)He also forgets Slavery was started by PRIVATE companies initially - but dont remind him
of that as he coos "Free Market"
(no subject)
Date: 30/4/12 18:39 (UTC)Wait, what?
(no subject)
Date: 30/4/12 19:26 (UTC)No they didn't. They did it because it fucking made them money.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 22:26 (UTC)the Free Market will fix all.
What's funny is you argue to show where something grew under an actual free market situation and I would remind you
that the burden is on **YOU** since "Free Market" as you describe it has never existed outside of Somalia.
and no -- you did NOT say it would do "as well" as government action but arged that it would do quite worse which is
in opposition to the actual history of the U.S.
(no subject)
Date: 30/4/12 09:32 (UTC)Now show an instance where discrimination flourished and grew under an actual free market situation, also provide evidence that anti discrimination laws have performed better than simply creating a legal free market in degrading the institutions of slavery and discrimination over time.
Private Southern country clubs vs Public golf courses. I think I'm done here.
(no subject)
Date: 30/4/12 22:33 (UTC)Country clubs are anecdata... ok... Rasillio asked for a specific industry. I gave him one. Care to show the great integration case that is country clubs?
And have you been to country club recently? Or a public golf course?
Yes. I'm part of a well to do family of suburban Atlanta and Dallas Ft. Worth. Last Thanksgiving the only blacks I saw were plating my prime rib. In fact as far as I know, the last black person that was a member of the club(and incidentally the first and only black member of the club) left in 1999 after 3 years of membership. I also golf in Charlotte, NC and Hilton Head, SC on public courses.
A better example would probably be publicly-accessible gyms and pools rather than places that are basically the stereotypical privileged white male hangout.
Good to know you acknowledge white male privilege.
For the record: I don't believe strongly one way or the other: that discrimination would be less/more without the institution of government. I think fine arguments can be made both ways, and that they're both kinda right.
I think discrimination exists on a systemic level. So in one sense yeah government out to be blamed. Private industry though caters to the dominant classes in our society and isn't some how immunized against racism by merely a profit motive.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 19:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 20:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 20:37 (UTC)1: The Market isn't about eliminating discrimination, it's about making a profit. There's no reason why the Market would somehow magically rid us of discrimination.
2: I don't think I give two shits about people's attitudes changing in the "right" way, just that the law is there to enforce non-discrimination. We're SUPPOSED to be doing what's right, not what's politically expedient.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 21:05 (UTC)Wrong, the market is about fulfilling human needs, profit is only one way of measuring it's effectiveness in doing so, however even with that lets assume you are correct.
So we'll assume that the market is all about profit, that means that an individual manager who discriminates is putting a goal besides profit in the forefront of his business meaning he is defacto not seeking to maximize profit nad therefore over time will lose out in the marketplace to competitors who do not discriminate.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 21:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/4/12 19:25 (UTC)In the free market? Do tell.
(no subject)
Date: 30/4/12 19:50 (UTC)And slavery was a function of that. Not government.
(no subject)
Date: 30/4/12 20:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 20:37 (UTC)1: The Market isn't about eliminating discrimination, it's about making a profit. There's no reason why the Market would somehow magically rid us of discrimination.
2: I don't think I give two shits about people's attitudes changing in the "right" way, just that the law is there to enforce non-discrimination. We're SUPPOSED to be doing what's right, not what's politically expedient.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 20:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 21:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 20:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 22:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/12 22:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/4/12 01:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/4/12 09:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/5/12 09:37 (UTC)