(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]

"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.