(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313613

Second amendment rights. But only for Christians and McCain voters.

This is really dumb, and I'd like to see everyone in this comm agree that the owner of this store is violating the law and discriminating unjustly. That is my view, if there is another view out there, please, share it with me.

Comments

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Really? Because last time I checked, I don't actually have to physically be in a store in the local five and dime to buy an item I'm looking for. The internet has given the consumer reach far beyond physical constraints of their own limited ability to travel to some remote location. So while there are almost assuredly more than one bigoted shopkeeper out there, there also might as well be only one.

But it doesn't just have to be something as irrational as bigotry that your argument includes. Say I own a gun store and my store's policy is to only sell guns to persons who have received 50 hours of training, and I do this not because I am required to, but because that's how I want my business to be run. I am barring persons who have less than that from purchasing my wares, and according to what I am hearing now, my refusal keeps those who don't qualify from accessing the market - as a blanket statement.

[prock.livejournal.com]

So while there are almost assuredly more than one bigoted shopkeeper out there, there also might as well be only one.

The cost comes when I try to do business with someone who bars me from participating. It doesn't matter if I can go somewhere else, the opportunity cost is spent and cannot be recovered. Economic harm is harm.

Say I own a gun store and my store's policy is to only sell guns to persons who have received 50 hours of training ...

I'm sorry, but I don't see how infringing on peoples second amendment rights furthers your case at all.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Economic harm isn't the harm of a right.

[prock.livejournal.com]

I have no clue what your point is here. If you're suggesting that free markets and liberty are about economic harm, you're free to make that case.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I'm saying that if you are suggesting that its not my prerogative to set rules for my own business, then someone will have to enforce their prerogative to make sure I don't. This is usually done by law. So let's go there, shall we?

By law, I then should be required to allow an obnoxious boor to yell at the screen at my movie theater because if I do not, I'll be violating his free speech rights.

By law, if a child enters my gun store and asks for a 12ga shotgun, I am obliged to sell it to her if she has the money (maybe she's from a rich family that spoils her) but I cannot deny her.

[prock.livejournal.com]

By law, I then should be required to allow an obnoxious boor to yell at the screen at my movie theater because if I do not, I'll be violating his free speech rights.

You've gone quite far afield here. No one is arguing that those who do harm (say, by yelling at the screen) should be free of consequences.

By law, if a child enters my gun store and asks for a 12ga shotgun, I am obliged to sell it to her if she has the money (maybe she's from a rich family that spoils her) but I cannot deny her.

I think it's well established in law that minors are not full citizens afforded the same rights as an adult.

It might help if you could make your point based on who a person votes for or their ethnicity, since it is that sort of a priori discrimination that's in question.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I could do that, but it would be missing the point of my rebuttal, which is that it doesn't matter if it's specifically about this man's ethically challenged criteria (i.e no Muslims or liberals). Not all ethics justifiably enter into the realm of legal remedy and it doesn't even with the claim of opportunity cost in this case, which you made above.

Because opportunity cost isn't just incurred by just the consumer, but by the owner as well. It just so happens that on the part of the owner, it's self-inflicted.

[prock.livejournal.com]

Not all ethics justifiably enter into the realm of legal remedy

If that's your point, you'll get no disagreement with me.

Because opportunity cost isn't just incurred by just the consumer, but by the owner as well.

The idea of economic "suicide bombing" as justification for legitimizing anti-market discrimination rings quite hollow.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

The racist shopkeeper isn't trying to commit economic suicide. And the 'suicide bombing' analogy isn't really great either. The intent is not to destroy themselves and others, but to preserve their prejudice.

A free market does not guarantee the most efficient outcome (where there is no prejudice applied anywhere, for example), it just affords the possibility that an efficient solution may be found where other approaches are precluded from doing so because they lack other characteristics which prevent even the possibility from existing.

[prock.livejournal.com]

The intent is not to destroy themselves and others, but to preserve their prejudice.

Certainly. As that prejudice harms others, it is illegitimate. Legitimizing systematic market distortions only disrupts markets and reduces their efficiency.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

It doesn't harm them any more than they harm themselves, that is if we're still talking about opportunity cost. That cuts both ways.

In terms of market distortions, imitation and homogeneity are far more disruptive. By tolerating people making decisions based on imitation rather than relying on their own private information, we are in no less a way legitimizing that kind of thought which only disrupts markets and reduces their efficiency, harming everyone. Consistency would seem to insist that we should begin forbidding economic decisions based on imitation. Are you prepared to go that far?

[prock.livejournal.com]

It doesn't harm them any more than they harm themselves, that is if we're still talking about opportunity cost. That cuts both ways.

Again, the "it's ok if I harm you as long as I harm myself too" argument holds no water. Sorry.

In terms of market distortions, imitation and homogeneity are far more disruptive.

Likewise, arguing that one distortion is ok because others exists also holds no water.

Suffice it to say, the marketplace of ideas has spoken, and the consensus is that class discrimination is not universally tolerated. Such is the way of the world.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"Again, the "it's ok if I harm you as long as I harm myself too" argument holds no water. Sorry."

First of all, I really don't like it when people apologize to me for stating their opinion. I'm not offended or insulted by your opinion, only if you were to make a personal attack, and you haven't done that.

On to the meaty issues:

You've gone to care to build your argument around opportunity cost as the source of the offensiveness, so that's what I'm sticking with. Every decision we make to the exclusion of other possibilities caries opportunity cost. If the loss due to opportunity cost is punishable harm then the market free or otherwise cannot operate without it. There is even opportunity cost associate with race on the part of those who refuse to patronize establishments owned by people of color. The situation is reversed, but the effect is the same. How would you plan to consistently deal with those people? Are they no less guilty?

"Likewise, arguing that one distortion is ok because others exists also holds no water."

You seem like a smart enough fellow to understand that the 'okayness' isn't what I'm arguing. Consistency is, and that's all I'm asking of you at this point. Homogeneity and imitation do cause distortions in the market, causing more harm than the errant bigoted businessman could ever hope to achieve. This is the stated reason for justifying the illegality of the latter, so how would you handle the person who causes harm via imitation and homogeneous behavior?

"Suffice it to say, the marketplace of ideas has spoken, and the consensus is that class discrimination is not universally tolerated. Such is the way of the world."

Suffice to say, arguing from the point of view of "the way things are" only serves to shut down discussion of possible alternative ways of examining issues. There is only one 'way things are' but many diverse views on how to look at them.

[prock.livejournal.com]

It appears you've confused yourself.

If you make a choice and suffer an opportunity cost, that's on you.

If I make a choice, and impose an opportunity cost on you, that's on me.

In a world where class discrimination is legal, opportunity cost can be significantly non-trivial. In fact, such pass opportunity cost was deemed to be so high that distorting policies like affirmative action were implemented.

If consistency is in fact what you're looking for then having "no class discrimination" seems like a move to a more consistent world. I can buy widgets from any widget vendor without having to go through some clearing house to determine if my particular class is on the list of acceptable patrons.

You're welcome to argue against "the way things are", but I think you'll find such an endeavor to be generally fruitless. Sure, it's fun to be a contrarian. And it's loads of fun to be "right" when everyone else is "wrong". But at a basic level, it's quite useful to understand how and why the world works the way that it does. While there may be injustices in the system, I think you'll find that the current system is quite adequate and capable of managing modern society.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"It appears you've confused yourself."

Well thank Heaven that it's appearance only.

"If you make a choice and suffer an opportunity cost, that's on you.

If I make a choice, and impose an opportunity cost on you, that's on me."

Every choice 'imposes' this kind opportunity cost on somebody else. I can only spend the five dollar bill in my hand once, and if I spend it at Bob's Doughnuts, I cannot spend the same 5 dollars again at Jerry's Doughnuts. Jerry 'suffers' for my decision, and I have imposed it upon him, by not giving it to him, after that, the reason why I did it is meaningless to the result. And maybe Jerry has objectively better doughnuts and I lost out in the exchange as well. But it was never either of their five dollars to decide what to do with it, just as it is true that the goods and services in the stores are not mine until the store owner agrees to exchange them for my money.

"
If consistency is in fact what you're looking for then having "no class discrimination" seems like a move to a more consistent world."

That's great, and I agree that is a great and honorable goal to rally around. I truly would love to see it gone. I only have a few specific issues with the means that were undertaken to do it. I'll take note that you haven't even attempted to tell me why my own comparisons with other non-trivial opportunity cost catastrophes like bubbles shouldn't be dealt with similarly on an individual level. You could at least tell me why the question is wrong.

"I can buy widgets from any widget vendor without having to go through some clearing house to determine if my particular class is on the list of acceptable patrons."

Yes, and I doubt the odds of you running into such an instance would noticeably increase if the legal situation changed. Like I've been saying, there has been a very large amount of population and culture shift that has gone on and is still going on in the right direction.

"Sure, it's fun to be a contrarian."

That's too bad. Sounds like I'm missing out. I think I'll survive though.

"But at a basic level, it's quite useful to understand how and why the world works the way that it does. While there may be injustices in the system, I think you'll find that the current system is quite adequate and capable of managing modern society."

Despite appearances, I am well at peace with the way things are because one does not have to agree with all the whys and hows in order to, well, have peace. If you go back over this whole thread, take note that I have never once seriously proposed an endeavor should be made to overturn it. I'm arguing against the reasoning being put before me that supports it.

If you hang around here often enough you'll notice that's a trend with me. Other times I'll make an argument on principle and go the extra mile and suggest that a serious attempt to change policy should be made, like I often do with the war on drugs.

[prock.livejournal.com]

Every choice 'imposes' this kind opportunity cost on somebody else.

This is the silliest thing you've said so far. Your examples indicate that you don't understand the definition of opportunity cost.

I'll take note that you haven't even attempted to tell me why my own comparisons with other non-trivial opportunity cost catastrophes like bubbles shouldn't be dealt with similarly on an individual level.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm guessing you're confusing conversations, but if you give me a link I'll take a look and give you a response.

Yes, and I doubt the odds of you running into such an instance would noticeably increase if the legal situation changed.

You seem to be forgetting what has happened in the past when class discrimination was a legitimate practice.

I'm arguing against the reasoning being put before me that supports it.

Unfortunately, your arguments have been fractured across many posts. Why not take this opportunity to make a new post where you present a coherent rationale for why class discrimination should be a legitimate practice. It would certainly be helpful if you included a discussion of past and present economic costs to the discriminated class in your rationale.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"This is the silliest thing you've said so far. Your examples indicate that you don't understand the definition of opportunity cost."

I'm playing on your ball-field and applying your conception of opportunity cost being 'imposed' between buyer and seller, taking it as a given for the sake of argument, and extending it to illustrate my problem with it. My own understanding of opportunity cost aligns fairly well with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost).

"I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm guessing you're confusing conversations, but if you give me a link I'll take a look and give you a response."

In terms of market distortions, imitation and homogeneity are far more disruptive. By tolerating people making decisions based on imitation rather than relying on their own private information, we are in no less a way legitimizing that kind of thought which only disrupts markets and reduces their efficiency, harming everyone. Consistency would seem to insist that we should begin forbidding economic decisions based on imitation. Are you prepared to go that far? (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1208177.html?thread=96181361#t96181361)

Homogeneity and imitation do cause distortions in the market, causing more harm than the errant bigoted businessman could ever hope to achieve. This is the stated reason for justifying the illegality of the latter, so how would you handle the person who causes harm via imitation and homogeneous behavior? (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1208177.html?thread=96197233#t96197233)

"You seem to be forgetting what has happened in the past when class discrimination was a legitimate practice."

I do not, and I also do not forget the numerous public policies that played a very active role in sustaining it. If the argument is that Jim Crow wasn't a necessary and integral part of the strategy of suppression, then that's one I haven't heard before. Discrimination was not merely allowed, but enforced via the mockery of the 14th amendment that was the embodiment of Jim Crow. If it didn't mock it by calling out separate rules for the races explicitly which it did occasionally under the insanity of separate-but-equal, then it did in practice through selective application of laws, and it was a violation either way. That doesn't mean everything becomes rainbows and puppy dogs in its absence of all that, but absence allows for change to enter the cracks and fracture the system of private discrimination. In a somewhat forgotten tidbit about the Montgomery Bus Boycott, it did bring Montgomery business leaders who supported segregation to the table with the boycotters, something that would have been unheard of when the boycott began. Whites sympathetic to desegregation were also not non-existent.

"Unfortunately, your arguments have been fractured across many posts. Why not take this opportunity to make a new post where you present a coherent rationale for why class discrimination should be a legitimate practice. It would certainly be helpful if you included a discussion of past and present economic costs to the discriminated class in your rationale."

If this post were still 50 comments young this would be a reasonable request. As it is approaching 500, and I had been heavily involved with it even before you entered in, it is less so. If the subject comes up again as it does at least once a year we can give it another go then.

[prock.livejournal.com]

Your conception of opportunity costs is incorrect. Opportunity costs are borne by those who make the choices. In the case of a discriminating establishment there are multiple costs. Getting hung up on your incorrect understanding of opportunity cost doesn't change the basic fact that class discrimination imposes economic costs on the discriminated class.

If you think it doesn't, you're mistaken.

Consistency would seem to insist that we should begin forbidding economic decisions based on imitation. Are you prepared to go that far?

This is quite a muddled proposition, and it's not clear what you're really saying here. With respect to your specific question, this appears to be a strawman argument. Bubbles are complex economic events, and not the direct result of "imitation". Maybe you're really asking whether governments should take interventionist action to deal with larger economic issues? The general answer is yes.

Homogeneity and imitation do cause distortions in the market, causing more harm than the errant bigoted businessman could ever hope to achieve. This is the stated reason for justifying the illegality of the latter, so how would you handle the person who causes harm via imitation and homogeneous behavior?

Again, this appears to be another straw man. It appears that you're questioning the effects of herd mentality on free markets and the tendency it has to move prices away from "optimal", for some particular definition of optimal. Maybe it would help if you stuck to the issue at hand instead of trying to move the discussion far afield in what appears to be some strange attempt to construct a logical trap.

Or, we could discuss the price of yak butter in Tibet.

I do not, and I also do not forget the numerous public policies that played a very active role in sustaining it.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you arguing that it was ok when public polices supported class discrimination? Or are you saying that class discrimination is only wrong when supported by public policy? As neither of those positions make much sense, I'll ask you to clarify.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you arguing that it was ok when public polices supported class discrimination?"

No, and I believed I used enough negative descriptors in my characterization to adequately indicate this. Careful, I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually reading everything or only picking out the first sentence in each paragraph.

"Or are you saying that class discrimination is only wrong when supported by public policy?" Again, no. But as we agreed earlier just because something is wrong does not automatically mean the recourse is found in the law.

"As neither of those positions make much sense, I'll ask you to clarify."

I've used up my clarification quotient with this comment. If by this time I haven't adequately explained myself to you, then I likely couldn't do any better if I went on for another 100 comments. I've evaluated the opportunity cost in continuing this thread, and it's not looking good. There are more useful things I could be doing now instead of this, and I'm going to go do them.

[prock.livejournal.com]

No, and I believed I used enough negative descriptors in my characterization to adequately indicate this.

You certainly did, but you also had this sort of hemming and hawing:

"That doesn't mean everything becomes rainbows and puppy dogs in its absence of all that, but absence allows for change..."

Allowing for change also allows for things to stay the same. You are indicating that merely allowing for change was enough, and that whether or not actual change occurred wasn't critical.

If by this time I haven't adequately explained myself to you, then I likely couldn't do any better if I went on for another 100 comments.

This does seem quite likely. It may even be that the muddled reasoning you're demonstrating here is an indication that you cannot even explain your position even to yourself.

I've evaluated the opportunity cost in continuing this thread, and it's not looking good.

This seems like a reasonable conclusion. Continuing to offer up ill thought out rationales for legitimizing class discrimination hardly seems like a productive use of your time.

Cheers.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"This does seem quite likely. It may even be that the muddled reasoning you're demonstrating here is an indication that you cannot even explain your position even to yourself."

"Continuing to offer up ill thought out rationales for legitimizing class discrimination hardly seems like a productive use of your time."

And in two sentences you've guaranteed I won't be choosing you to engage with anymore.

You could have easily bowed out gracefully, but in opting to do otherwise I'm sensing I've been played by a better-than-average troll. *makes mental note*.

[prock.livejournal.com]

And in two sentences you've guaranteed I won't be choosing you to engage with anymore.

This seems quite prudent. Continually offering up muddled non-sequiturs seems like a bad idea in general. Avoiding discussion with people that recognize them as such does seem to be quite prudent.

You could have easily bowed out gracefully, but in opting to do otherwise I'm sensing I've been played by a better-than-average troll.

If by "troll", you mean "someone who actively discusses the topic in a clear and logical manner", then you're quite right.

On the other hand, if by "troll" you mean "someone who keeps trying to change the subject and redirect the discussion to unrelated topics", then you win that honor.

Hopefully the next time you get into a conversation about class discrimination you can put aside your pet theories on free speech, gun training, and bubbles, and instead discuss the topic at hand.