Discrimination and Private Business/Property

[dilettante]

So all the hubbub surrounding Rand Paul and his comments with Rachel Maddow have had me thinking about how the government deals with discrimination. Two big questions stand out in my mind:

1) To what extent should discrimination by private businesses or individuals be treated differently from discrimination by the state? For instance, title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been used to outlaw racial discrimination in pretty much any business that even remotely engages in any sort of inter-state commerce. Should the government be allowed to dictate the policies of private business in this fashion? Does it raise issues relating to freedom of expression? This seems to be where Paul got himself in trouble, as his distaste for discrimination clashed with his libertarian principles.

2) What sort of discrimination should the state (and/or private businesses/individuals) be prohibited from engaging in? Discriminating based on race and gender is clearly prohibited, but what about other categories: age, nationality, religion, sexual-orientation, politics, activities outside the workplace...etc. The big question here might be 'Is there any clear determinant one can point to in prohibiting some sorts of discrimination and allowing others?'

I raise these questions more because I'm interested in thinking about/discussing them than because I have answers. I definitely support the Civil Rights Act of '64, including Title II, though I think its fair to say that it unquestionably represents an infringement on private rights; so be it.
As to the second question, I have even less certainty. Clearly, tying discrimination to what is 'good for business' is a non-starter: in many cases one could successfully argue that racial (or gendered) discrimination helped their business.

Any thoughts?

[The Drunk Girl]

You hear people complain about the government and how people want them less involved. That is all fine and dandy until an issue starts to effect people on a personal level. Personally, I would like to agree that a business/property has the right to choose, but then again if/when I was discriminated against I wouldn't like the idea too well.

I also (in a perfect world, and I guess that is the problem) believe that state's should be allowed more rights. But, when that happens you end up with stupid shit like out in Arizona. It's all just one big gray area and to me there really doesn't seem to be a good compromise for any of it.

How about we all just move of the grid and call it a day? :lol:

[Michael]

So all the hubbub surrounding Rand Paul and his comments with Rachel Maddow have had me thinking about how the government deals with discrimination. Two big questions stand out in my mind:
Excellent questions - topical, important and very challenging. :)

1) To what extent should discrimination by private businesses or individuals be treated differently from discrimination by the state? For instance, title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been used to outlaw racial discrimination in pretty much any business that even remotely engages in any sort of inter-state commerce. Should the government be allowed to dictate the policies of private business in this fashion? Does it raise issues relating to freedom of expression? This seems to be where Paul got himself in trouble, as his distaste for discrimination clashed with his libertarian principles.

If one believes in pure libertarian principles applied absolutely, I don't see how anyone can accept the Civil Rights Act (title II) in any way shape or form. Rand Paul (and his allies at CATO) are ostensibly correct here - the Civil Rights Act clearly infringes upon the private liberty of private enterprises engaged in non-interstate commerce and this is not authorized by the US Constitution - though to be fair, I don't think such infringements are prohibited by the US Constitution either.

The problem/confusion/conflict here is about the difference between public and private spheres. The State certainly has the legal and constitutional authority to make laws (and impinge liberty) in the public sphere.

But is a restaurant lunch counter (for example) part of the 'private' or 'public' sphere? That's one key element of the question here. I think one can make pursuasive arguments on both sides of that - there is no clear line of distinction for public/private in the realm of commerce.

2) What sort of discrimination should the state (and/or private businesses/individuals) be prohibited from engaging in? Discriminating based on race and gender is clearly prohibited, but what about other categories: age, nationality, religion, sexual-orientation, politics, activities outside the workplace...etc. The big question here might be 'Is there any clear determinant one can point to in prohibiting some sorts of discrimination and allowing others?'

I have previously argued that the state engages in routine discrimination and that this is entirely legal.

For example, the state regulates liquor sales and driving licenses by age discrimination. Social security and Medicare are government programs that are entirely based upon age discrimination. The passport and immigration offices of the government are also positively obsessed with the issue of discriminating based on nationality. And private religious charities are legally permitted to discriminate in their employment practices in favor of religion, and we also (generally) require discrimination of sex/gender in respect of public restrooms.

In the private market, some stores sell only women's clothing for example. This is a clear cut example of sexual/gender discrimination. However, this is entirely legal, normal and very common.

And this is all without pointing at the whole idea of 'affirmative action' which by definition is a major limitation of private corporate liberty by the government in favor of reverse-discrimination based on race (in the name of equity).

My point here is that discrimination is usually legal, popular and commonly used in the private and public spheres. There is nothing unusual about it.

However, we do have some laws and some rules that try to limit or oppose certain and specific types of discrimination across society. This is where the legal/theoretical/practical problems occur because every rule against discrimination is always a limitation upon private liberty by definition.

I raise these questions more because I'm interested in thinking about/discussing them than because I have answers. I definitely support the Civil Rights Act of '64, including Title II, though I think its fair to say that it unquestionably represents an infringement on private rights; so be it.
As to the second question, I have even less certainty. Clearly, tying discrimination to what is 'good for business' is a non-starter: in many cases one could successfully argue that racial (or gendered) discrimination helped their business.

Any thoughts?

I accept the right of a democratic majority to rule over the state apparatus and the administration of civil society, as long as this is done according to the rule of law. In 'non-American' lingo, I call this principle the supremacy of Parliament. That is to say, "we" can make and enforce any laws "we" want and no damn piece of ancient parchment is ever going to make any difference if the political willpower and circumstance is available and necessity requires it.

Decisions about which laws to make and which ones to ignore is a matter entirely suited to political resolution and that's how the game works (for good or ill). And politics is all about power.

[Michael]

You hear people complain about the government and how people want them less involved. That is all fine and dandy until an issue starts to effect people on a personal level. Personally, I would like to agree that a business/property has the right to choose, but then again if/when I was discriminated against I wouldn't like the idea too well.

I also (in a perfect world, and I guess that is the problem) believe that state's should be allowed more rights. But, when that happens you end up with stupid shit like out in Arizona. It's all just one big gray area and to me there really doesn't seem to be a good compromise for any of it.
Indeed. Politics is a messy business and the game is all about working out the details on those necessary compromises.

How about we all just move of the grid and call it a day? :lol:

How do we get us all to agree on anything at all? ;)

[The Drunk Girl]

Indeed. Politics is a messy business and the game is all about working out the details on those necessary compromises.

It's a game I really wish I wasn't apart of, but one really has no control over that once being born, huh? Everyone is different and therefore happiness and equality can't be applied to everyone in every situation. It sucks but that is just the way it is.



How do we get us all to agree on anything at all? ;)

Yeah, so we wouldn't all agree on everything...big whoop wanna fight about it? :lol: There is enough common sense and reasoning between us that I think we would be alright. :D

[dilettante]

Excellent questions - topical, important and very challenging. :)

I'm glad you like them.


If one believes in pure libertarian principles applied absolutely, I don't see how anyone can accept the Civil Rights Act (title II) in any way shape or form. Rand Paul (and his allies at CATO) are ostensibly correct here - the Civil Rights Act clearly infringes upon the private liberty of private enterprises engaged in non-interstate commerce and this is not authorized by the US Constitution - though to be fair, I don't think such infringements are prohibited by the US Constitution either.

The problem/confusion/conflict here is about the difference between public and private spheres. The State certainly has the legal and constitutional authority to make laws (and impinge liberty) in the public sphere.

But is a restaurant lunch counter (for example) part of the 'private' or 'public' sphere? That's one key element of the question here. I think one can make pursuasive arguments on both sides of that - there is no clear line of distinction for public/private in the realm of commerce.


I have previously argued that the state engages in routine discrimination and that this is entirely legal.

For example, the state regulates liquor sales and driving licenses by age discrimination. Social security and Medicare are government programs that are entirely based upon age discrimination. The passport and immigration offices of the government are also positively obsessed with the issue of discriminating based on nationality. And private religious charities are legally permitted to discriminate in their employment practices in favor of religion, and we also (generally) require discrimination of sex/gender in respect of public restrooms.

In the private market, some stores sell only women's clothing for example. This is a clear cut example of sexual/gender discrimination. However, this is entirely legal, normal and very common.

And this is all without pointing at the whole idea of 'affirmative action' which by definition is a major limitation of private corporate liberty by the government in favor of reverse-discrimination based on race (in the name of equity).

My point here is that discrimination is usually legal, popular and commonly used in the private and public spheres. There is nothing unusual about it.

However, we do have some laws and some rules that try to limit or oppose certain and specific types of discrimination across society. This is where the legal/theoretical/practical problems occur because every rule against discrimination is always a limitation upon private liberty by definition.



I accept the right of a democratic majority to rule over the state apparatus and the administration of civil society, as long as this is done according to the rule of law. In 'non-American' lingo, I call this principle the supremacy of Parliament. That is to say, "we" can make and enforce any laws "we" want and no damn piece of ancient parchment is ever going to make any difference if the political willpower and circumstance is available and necessity requires it.

Decisions about which laws to make and which ones to ignore is a matter entirely suited to political resolution and that's how the game works (for good or ill). And politics is all about power.

I think that's a fair description of the situation (though I'm not sure I'd call selling only women's cloths an act of gender-discrimination), however, I think it just misses the more interesting proscriptive issues.
You've clearly shown that the state does discriminate in various ways and that Congress (or Parliament, or whatever) can pass discriminatory legislation if it wants to and has sufficient support. And that's all well and good, but isn't the more intriguing and unsettled issue the question of whether or not the state should discriminate, or allow private discrimination, and along what lines?

I suppose I'm most interested in trying to find a reliable framework for identifying between desirable/acceptable and undesirable/unacceptable forms of discrimination and state intervention. Is it good that state infringes on our freedom to the extent that corporations cannot exclude employees on the basis of skin-color or limit pay on the basis of gender? If so, does the same principle apply to discrimination based on religion, freckle-count, or body-fat-index? Indeed, the core question might be "What are the principles for separating good and bad discrimination?" If you were a Senator and asked to vote on discriminatory legislation, what principles could you turn to to ensure consistency and/or justice?

I've thought about this a little over the past couple days (life remains quite busy 'round here). I haven't come up with anything solid, though I've concluded that any answer must take into account the contemporary culture. E.G. I'm inclined to think that, had skin-color never played a major role in how people treated one another, forbidding discrimination along those lines in the private sphere merely to frustrate a few scattered racists would be an unwarranted extension of state-power. It was the dire, nigh-ubiquitous nature of racial discrimination in America in the mid 1900s that leads me to think Title II was a desirable and acceptable imposition.

[dilettante]

You hear people complain about the government and how people want them less involved. That is all fine and dandy until an issue starts to effect people on a personal level. Personally, I would like to agree that a business/property has the right to choose, but then again if/when I was discriminated against I wouldn't like the idea too well.

You say you wouldn't like it if you were discriminated against, but in what sense wouldn't you like it? For example, I don't like it that I have to wear a jacket to the fancy restaurant down the street, but I acknowledge that this is (and should be) the right of the owner/manager and don't call it an injustice. On the other hand, if he said "Get out, we don't serve people your color!"...well, I wouldn't like that either, and furthermore I'd refuse to acknowledge his right to operate his property in such a fashion and call it a unjust. I'd like to think that I apply the same standards when it comes to other people.

I think we can all agree that sometimes people are jerks and that the government can't (and shouldn't try) to legally prohibit all jerkiness. But when it comes to the aspect of jerkiness involved in discrimination, should that allowed under the cover that "people are free to be jerks" or should it be legally banned? And is there any way to consistently draw a line between dislikable but acceptable discrimination and dislikable and unacceptable discrimination?

[Michael]

I think that's a fair description of the situation (though I'm not sure I'd call selling only women's cloths an act of gender-discrimination), however, I think it just misses the more interesting proscriptive issues.

I think not. I think private stores selling ONLY women's clothing is by definition discriminatory against men. This is a perfect example of the kind of normal discrimination that is not only tolerated, but encouraged in our society (and why 'discrimination' is such a complicated topic).

That's the key point here. So many people look at an issue, see "discrimination" and scream murder as if all discriminatory policies are evil by definition. That is 100% incorrect. I'd say that 99% of all types of discrimination in our society is legal and popular. It is the 1% of special types of discrimination that our society has issues with. They are exceptions to the rule.

As such, I stand by my earlier statement - that democratic majorities have the absolute right to impinge upon private liberty for the purposes of creating a public good (or righting a public wrong).

[dilettante]

I think not. I think private stores selling ONLY women's clothing is by definition discriminatory against men. This is a perfect example of the kind of normal discrimination that is not only tolerated, but encouraged in our society (and why 'discrimination' is such a complicated topic).

Meh. If you say so. :shrug:


As such, I stand by my earlier statement - that democratic majorities have the absolute right to impinge upon private liberty for the purposes of creating a public good (or righting a public wrong).

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that statement, but again, it doesn't answer the question. Obviously the government has the power to enforce discrimination. But how should it use that power?

Or, to use your language, how does one distinguish those forms of discrimination that create "a public good" from those that do not?

[The Drunk Girl]

You say you wouldn't like it if you were discriminated against, but in what sense wouldn't you like it? For example, I don't like it that I have to wear a jacket to the fancy restaurant down the street, but I acknowledge that this is (and should be) the right of the owner/manager and don't call it an injustice. On the other hand, if he said "Get out, we don't serve people your color!"...well, I wouldn't like that either, and furthermore I'd refuse to acknowledge his right to operate his property in such a fashion and call it a unjust. I'd like to think that I apply the same standards when it comes to other people.

I think we can all agree that sometimes people are jerks and that the government can't (and shouldn't try) to legally prohibit all jerkiness. But when it comes to the aspect of jerkiness involved in discrimination, should that allowed under the cover that "people are free to be jerks" or should it be legally banned? And is there any way to consistently draw a line between dislikable but acceptable discrimination and dislikable and unacceptable discrimination?

There is no way to draw a line between the two. The world is not black and white and never will be.

I think Michael has a good idea with what he said regarding people getting their panties in a wad over "special" types of discrimination. Discrimination occurs on an almost daily basis in each of our lives and most are content with it (even if they aren't aware it is discrimination). Hell, I am guilty of it myself at times. I guess a "bad" thing can sometimes be good. :shrug: I know this probably sounds like a shitty response, but the whole thing is just too damn gray.

[Michael]

Meh. If you say so. :shrug:
I keep saying so because I consider this to be the single most important point about this issue. It is what defines the context of the political issue here. Discrimination is necessary, common, useful and very popular. That's a simple fact that is often not only forgotten, but entirely ignored in discussions about 'discrimination'.

Women's clothing stores discriminate against men's desire to buy clothing for a good reason - it allows them to service their women's clothing customers with better pricing and/or service quality. Just like hair salons often discriminate against women by charging higher prices for women's hair cuts than they do for men. Indeed, women generally do get more and better hair cutting services than men do, so the price discrepancy is usually fair, but not always so. These kinds of discriminations are everyday common in the private and public marketplace and are generally very popular. Everyone does it, it seems.

This is not a defense of racial discrimination, merely a reminder of the world in which racial discrimination occurs is entirely filled with discrimination of every variety and most of these discriminations are very useful and popular. That's why I specifically chose 'womens clothing stores' as my principal illustrative example here - it is silly and unserious but it demonstrates my point perfectly because it is silly and unserious (and so very common). :)

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that statement, but again, it doesn't answer the question. Obviously the government has the power to enforce discrimination. But how should it use that power?

Or, to use your language, how does one distinguish those forms of discrimination that create "a public good" from those that do not?
Actually, I doubt if many people agree with me at all on this point. I'm saying that the US Constitution isn't worth the paper it is printed on and that Congress ought to have the power to legislate over the Constitution whether the Constitution approves or not.

I admit the Constitution is useful for legal redress when the government commits legal errors, but other than that, it doesn't seem to be very useful at all.

On the question of distinguishing "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination, I am asserting that the only 'true marker' or deciding point is the will of a democratic majority.

Any other method of distinguishing requires an agreed definition of "discrimination" and "good/bad" and legislating accordingly. In my books, that's either authoritarian (rules for the sake of rules) or theocratic (rules for the sake of the bible).

[Michael]

I might add that the historical 'civil rights' issue in the USA is a good demonstration of the political side of my argument.

Legal equality of citizenship was granted to ex-slaves after the Civil War, but local/regional democratic majorities in the South conspired to deny this for almost 100 years.

The 'civil rights' movement of the 1960s was all about supplying a national political will to turn the original letter of the law into reality (and out-muscle the local-regional democratic majorities in the South with the national democratic majority that opposed them).

The key element I'm pointing at here is the 'will of democratic majorities'. These can and do change over time, and they are very powerful when mobilized.

[wphelan]

I keep saying so because I consider this to be the single most important point about this issue. It is what defines the context of the political issue here. Discrimination is necessary, common, useful and very popular. That's a simple fact that is often not only forgotten, but entirely ignored in discussions about 'discrimination'.

Women's clothing stores discriminate against men's desire to buy clothing for a good reason - it allows them to service their women's clothing customers with better pricing and/or service quality. Just like hair salons often discriminate against women by charging higher prices for women's hair cuts than they do for men. Indeed, women generally do get more and better hair cutting services than men do, so the price discrepancy is usually fair, but not always so. These kinds of discriminations are everyday common in the private and public marketplace and are generally very popular. Everyone does it, it seems.

This is not a defense of racial discrimination, merely a reminder of the world in which racial discrimination occurs is entirely filled with discrimination of every variety and most of these discriminations are very useful and popular. That's why I specifically chose 'womens clothing stores' as my principal illustrative example here - it is silly and unserious but it demonstrates my point perfectly because it is silly and unserious (and so very common). :)


Actually, I doubt if many people agree with me at all on this point. I'm saying that the US Constitution isn't worth the paper it is printed on and that Congress ought to have the power to legislate over the Constitution whether the Constitution approves or not.

I admit the Constitution is useful for legal redress when the government commits legal errors, but other than that, it doesn't seem to be very useful at all.

On the question of distinguishing "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination, I am asserting that the only 'true marker' or deciding point is the will of a democratic majority.

Any other method of distinguishing requires an agreed definition of "discrimination" and "good/bad" and legislating accordingly. In my books, that's either authoritarian (rules for the sake of rules) or theocratic (rules for the sake of the bible).


I don't see how your women's clothing analogy works in the context of civil rights discrimination. Women's clothing stores provide a product that can be purchased freely by anyone. Men are free to purchase women's clothing either for themselves or for women. Women's clothing stores will sell to anyone willing and able to buy their product. They are no more discriminatory than is a movie theatre that won't sell automobiles. If I go to the movie theatre and demand a car, is that discrimination or is it stupidity?

As long as a business is willing to sell to anyone, they aren't discriminating unless we open that word up to mean that practically every choice anyone makes is an act of discrimination. If am self-employed and work alone, am I discriminating against the unemployed by not offering them a job? Or if I do hire one person based on the expectation that he or she would be the best employee, am I discriminating against all the other applicants? What about if I only purchase Jif peanut butter instead of Skippy? Am I discriminating against Skippy? I can see how you could technically call those acts of discrimination, but that seems like an entirely different animal.

A lunch counter that will serve the same lunch to one person but deny it to a different person is not the same as a women's clothing store that will sell clothes to anyone.

[The Drunk Girl]

This is not a defense of racial discrimination, merely a reminder of the world in which racial discrimination occurs is entirely filled with discrimination of every variety and most of these discriminations are very useful and popular. That's why I specifically chose 'womens clothing stores' as my principal illustrative example here - it is silly and unserious but it demonstrates my point perfectly because it is silly and unserious (and so very common). :)
.

Immediately I thought of jobs/careers and schools. Most places are on the kick of having at least a certain percentage of minorities present in their work facilities or universities. Universities are almost the worst (imo) in advertising this. It can't be denied that this is discrimination against other races and ethnic backgrounds (mostly whites), but it kind of keeps a "nice" balance within the circle. Am I proud to say that in some cases I have been the token? Yes and no.

[dilettante]

There is no way to draw a line between the two. The world is not black and white and never will be.


But someone has to draw some sort of line unless one wishes to open the door to all discrimination in all venues and roll back centuries of civil rights advancement.

There's much to be gained by realizing that the issue is complex and not "black and white", but I don't think that excuses simply throwing up one's hands and saying that there can be no distinguishing the good from the bad. We should be extraordinarily thankful that those who came before us didn't all view the matter in that light.

[dilettante]

I keep saying so because I consider this to be the single most important point about this issue. It is what defines the context of the political issue here. Discrimination is necessary, common, useful and very popular. That's a simple fact that is often not only forgotten, but entirely ignored in discussions about 'discrimination'.

Women's clothing stores discriminate against men's desire to buy clothing for a good reason - it allows them to service their women's clothing customers with better pricing and/or service quality. Just like hair salons often discriminate against women by charging higher prices for women's hair cuts than they do for men. Indeed, women generally do get more and better hair cutting services than men do, so the price discrepancy is usually fair, but not always so. These kinds of discriminations are everyday common in the private and public marketplace and are generally very popular. Everyone does it, it seems.

This is not a defense of racial discrimination, merely a reminder of the world in which racial discrimination occurs is entirely filled with discrimination of every variety and most of these discriminations are very useful and popular. That's why I specifically chose 'womens clothing stores' as my principal illustrative example here - it is silly and unserious but it demonstrates my point perfectly because it is silly and unserious (and so very common). :)

I can only echo wphelan's finely worded comments on how this expands the definition of "discrimination" beyond reasonable bounds and makes the word practically empty. By this definition every act is an act of discrimination and we might as well throw out the term.

And you're still not answering the question. You write that:


On the question of distinguishing "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination, I am asserting that the only 'true marker' or deciding point is the will of a democratic majority.


Does that mean that you form your political opinions by taking polls to what the "democratic majority" thinks of the issue? I'm not asking how the legal process works or how popular will is related to law. I'm asking you (and anyone else interested in discussing the issue) how you distinguish the good from the bad. I'm not interested in the "will of a democratic majority" or its effects. I'm interested in your personal opinions.

If you were asked to cast your vote on a bill which regulated discrimination, what principles might you turn to in deciding for or against it?

[The Drunk Girl]

But someone has to draw some sort of line unless one wishes to open the door to all discrimination in all venues and roll back centuries of civil rights advancement.

There's much to be gained by realizing that the issue is complex and not "black and white", but I don't think that excuses simply throwing up one's hands and saying that there can be no distinguishing the good from the bad. We should be extraordinarily thankful that those who came before us didn't all view the matter in that light.

Even when lines are drawn people are still going to be discriminated against.

Trust me, I am very thankful for those that came before me and put their beliefs first no matter the consequences. The world has come a long way over the past 50-70 years, not saying there still isn't a lot more work left to do ;)

Let's say, you and I are both up for a scholarship or admittance into Harvard. Both of our test scores are fantastic, but yours are better than mine....or your essay is better...whatever the heck all the criteria is, you are just a better than me. You should be admitted into Harvard over me, yet I am the one that gets in because I am a minority. (You, however end up going to a community college because Harvard was the only school you applied to :lol:). Bad joke, but the point is you were the most qualified and should have been chosen over me. Is that not an act of discrimination towards you?

Lines have been drawn to create equality, yet other inequalities are born. It is a continuous cycle.

[Michael]

I don't see how your women's clothing analogy works in the context of civil rights discrimination.

It doesn't. That's the point.

As I noted above:

My point here is that discrimination is usually legal, popular and commonly used in the private and public spheres. There is nothing unusual about it.
I've been trying (rather uselessly it seems) to point out that 99% of all discrimination encountered in public or private spheres is legal, common and popular.

There just happens to be one particular and specific sub-set of discrimination that is held to be illegal.

Women's clothing stores provide a product that can be purchased freely by anyone. Men are free to purchase women's clothing either for themselves or for women. Women's clothing stores will sell to anyone willing and able to buy their product. They are no more discriminatory than is a movie theatre that won't sell automobiles. If I go to the movie theatre and demand a car, is that discrimination or is it stupidity?
It is both. It is stupid to question that kind of discrimination because no one cares. But it certainly is discriminatory by strict definition of the terms.

Why are you refusing to acknowledge that the word discrimination has a general meaning that exists independent of racial politics? :ummm:

I just don't get that. Discrimination is normal and common. When I chose to reply to this thread and not some other thread this morning, I was discriminating. Nobody cares about that kind of discrimination. But it is discrimination and pretending it isn't does no one any favors.

Unless people understand what discrimination actually is, they can't really have much of an opinion about regulating it now can they?

As long as a business is willing to sell to anyone, they aren't discriminating unless we open that word up to mean that practically every choice anyone makes is an act of discrimination.
BINGO!

Every choice anyone makes is an act of discrimination. Pretending otherwise is foolish nonsense. That's just what the word means, nothing more, nothing less.

If am self-employed and work alone, am I discriminating against the unemployed by not offering them a job?
Unequivically yes. Is there anything wrong with this? No.

Or if I do hire one person based on the expectation that he or she would be the best employee, am I discriminating against all the other applicants?
Unequivically yes. Is there anything wrong with this? No.

What about if I only purchase Jif peanut butter instead of Skippy? Am I discriminating against Skippy?
Unequivically yes. You are apparently a discriminating buyer of peanut butter. Is there anything wrong with this? No.

I can see how you could technically call those acts of discrimination, but that seems like an entirely different animal.
No, it is not an entirely different animal at all. That's the point.

99% of all discrimination is common as breathing the air and just as controversial.

1% of discriminations are socially sensitive issues (racism and sexism primarily).

One cannot meaningfully discuss the latter without acknowledging the former since they are one and the same act.

[Michael]

I can only echo wphelan's finely worded comments on how this expands the definition of "discrimination" beyond reasonable bounds and makes the word practically empty. By this definition every act is an act of discrimination and we might as well throw out the term.
Throw out the term? You (and everyone else it seems) have already done so.

I'm just reminding people that's what they are doing. I'm not creating anything new here.

And you're still not answering the question. You write that:
I gave the best answer I could, to the best of my ability. If that answer is insufficient, then perhaps the premise of the question is at fault.

Does that mean that you form your political opinions by taking polls to what the "democratic majority" thinks of the issue?
No it doesn't mean that at all.

I'm not asking how the legal process works or how popular will is related to law. I'm asking you (and anyone else interested in discussing the issue) how you distinguish the good from the bad. I'm not interested in the "will of a democratic majority" or its effects. I'm interested in your personal opinions.
Personal opinions are mostly subjective whim and that interests me not.

Indeed, I rarely ever bother to spout my own subjective opinions on the basis that you might as well flip a coin - I'm just one of 6 billion.

Subjective whimsey just doesn't interest me as a topic of discussion.

If you were asked to cast your vote on a bill which regulated discrimination, what principles might you turn to in deciding for or against it?
That's an unrealistic hypothetical. I'm not running for public office and never intend to. I just analyze the issues.

As I've always stated, I consider subjective whim to be uninteresting. When I discuss public policy issues, I approach the topic entirely as an analyst. Thus, I analyze the issue and offer to share (and defend) my analysis.

I consider my own personal subjective opinion to be irrelevant to that process. Most of the time, I can't be bothered to have an opinion on most political topics, let alone going around posting about it.

[Michael]

So if I don't give subjective/hypothetical opinions the thread dies?

:shrug:

Seems like everyone was interested in this topic until I said I wasn't. :erm:

* * *

In an effort to get this thread going again, I will offer the opinon that Rand Paul is entirely correct - the Civil Rights Act, Title II, appears to be entirely unconstitutional. The US Constitution does not give the government the right to interfere with private enterprise on this basis.

I'd say the same about Roe v. Wade decision on abortion (the 'right to privacy' doesn't exist in the Constitution) and I'll say the same about Affirmative Action. These are all policies that have been enacted despite the US Constitution.

I find that very interesting. Of course, this just illustrates the point I raised above - that the only real rule here is the will of a democratic majority.

And the will of a majority is just that. It cannot be defined or predicted or codified in advance.

As for my 'opinon' on these three cases, I still have no personal opinion on any of them. None of these laws affect me personally in any way, therefore I have no need to form a subjective opinion, therefore I haven't.

[dilettante]

Actually only you and TDG actually responded to the OP, and both in ways which seemed to avoid the questions I was asking.

I ask 'what sort of discrimination should be prohibited'.
TDG replied by pointing out that "Even when lines are drawn people are still going to be discriminated against."
Michael replied, in essence, by noting the democratic majority had the power to enact or prohibit discrimination as they see fit.

I feel like I asked "What should we get for dinner?" and the only replies I got were "Not everyone agrees on what they like to eat" and "We have the ability to choose what they want for dinner." These are true statements, but they completely side-step the actual question. All I could do is just repeat, "Ok. So, what should we get for dinner?"

I'm not sure how else to respond. :shrug:

EDIT:
As to the issues you mentioned in the last post, I agree that it takes a very loose view of the constitution to see the Federal government as empowered to do what it does. Since I'm not a constitutional literalistic, that alone doesn't overly distress me.

[Michael]

Actually only you and TDG actually responded to the OP, and both in ways which seemed to avoid the questions I was asking.

I ask 'what sort of discrimination should be prohibited'.
I replied very clearly and concisely to this point. Only that which has majority democratic support. I don't see any other way to possibly answer the question - short of subjective whim.

If any given anti-discrimination policy has strong democratic majority support, then it is a justified policy enactment. If any given anti-discrimination policy doesn't have strong democratic majority support, then it is unjustified.

I'm certainly not going to entertain the idea that we ought to enact rules based on mysterious assertions about universal morality as I consider that absurd (and authoritarian and/or theocratic).

TDG replied by pointing out that "Even when lines are drawn people are still going to be discriminated against."
And a damn good point it was. All attempts to ban "discrimination" just discriminate against others.

Michael replied, in essence, by noting the democratic majority had the power to enact or prohibit discrimination as they see fit.
Officially, or constitutionally, this is NOT TRUE in the USA. It is only politically or legally true.

According to the US Constitution, the government does not have the authority to interfere in private commerce in this way. But the US government and US law certainly does do so.

My reply still stands. I can't see any other possible criteria that is rational.

I feel like I asked "What should we get for dinner?" and the only replies I got were "Not everyone agrees on what they like to eat" and "We have the ability to choose what they want for dinner." These are true statements, but they completely side-step the actual question. All I could do is just repeat, "Ok. So, what should we get for dinner?"

I think the replies given were far more interesting than the question. The question seeks subjective whim. I anticipated that any answer I could gave would be unsatisfactory and impossible to rationally defend, other than pure subjective whim.

It certainly isn't out of character for me to refuse to give answers to questions based entirely on subjective whim that cannot be rationally defended. I just don't go there.

I'm not sure how else to respond. :shrug:
Perhaps you might offer your own answer to the question so everyone else can object to YOUR reply, instead of you just demanding replies so you can object to them.

Because that's the only thing subjective whims produce - objections from others who don't share that same subjectivity - which is why I avoid offering them for discussion. I'm a political analyst, not a partisan activist.

EDIT:
As to the issues you mentioned in the last post, I agree that it takes a very loose view of the constitution to see the Federal government as empowered to do what it does. Since I'm not a constitutional literalistic, that alone doesn't overly distress me.
I'm a constitutional cynic, so that particular point amuses me. Constitutions are very useful and flexible things that mean just about anything anyone wants them to. Much like the Bible in fact.

Indeed, standing by the US Constitution, or 'originalism', seems to require racism and discrimination. :lol:

[Michael]

One question I'd have for anyone who thinks my answer is trite, is to say, will you accept the rule of a democratic majority if they choose to get rid of the Civil Rights Act, Title II? That is to say, if a democratic majority has the right to declare certain acts of discrimination to be illegal, it also has the right to declare certain acts of racial discrimination are legal.

I have no problem with this. This point is 100% consistent with my political position on a wide variety of issues. I suspect lots of people will disagree - many people love democratic majority rule when it rules the way they agree with. Support for democratic majority rule often goes out the window when one doesn't agree with the results.

[dilettante]

I replied very clearly and concisely to this point. Only that which has majority democratic support.

And you don't see that as circular? "The people should support whatever discrimination the people support"?


I don't see any other way to possibly answer the question - short of subjective whim.

I'm not sure I understand the equation of opinion with whim. I'd assumed that you based your political opinions on your analysis of the situation and general principles, rather than mere whimsy.


...
Indeed, standing by the US Constitution, or 'originalism', seems to require racism and discrimination. :lol:

Yes, it does seem that many of the people who are the greatest sticklers for "original intent" don't have a firm grasp on what that intent (or rather, what the various intents) was(/were).

[dilettante]

One question I'd have for anyone who thinks my answer is trite, is to say, will you accept the rule of a democratic majority if they choose to get rid of the Civil Rights Act, Title II? That is to say, if a democratic majority has the right to declare certain acts of discrimination to be illegal, it also has the right to declare certain acts of racial discrimination are legal.

I have no problem with this. This point is 100% consistent with my political position on a wide variety of issues. I suspect lots of people will disagree - many people love democratic majority rule when it rules the way they agree with. Support for democratic majority rule often goes out the window when one doesn't agree with the results.

I suppose that all depends on what "accept the rule of the democratic majority" means.

But I think it's fair to say that I'd vocally disagree if a national referendum rolled back civil rights legislation, perhaps even to the point of civil disobedience. I certainly don't have any belief that the democratic majority must always be right, or that the 'will of the majority' is some sacred thing which should never be defied, though in less extreme cases my respect for the rule of law and the integrity of the system means that I accept established law despite my disagreements.
However, looking back at history, I find that I applaud some of those who defied the will of the majority when it condoned or forced horrific practices (e.g. those who aided runaway slaves), even to the point of using force when absolutely necessary.

I'm certainly pleased when I learn that people agree with my opinions, but that doesn't mean that my opinions are determined by whatever "the will of the majority" is at the moment. Neither, I hope, are yours.

[MeMyselfAndI]

It should not be. Discrimination is discrimination. For example, at the market not far from where I live, a Muslim, Azerbaijani shopkeeper, after the whole incident with the Turkish Gaza aid ships, as part of the protest, put signs that said, well, not nice things about Jewish people. That's discrimination. By private business. In Siberian autonomous Republic, Sakha-Yakutia, head of local police (he's been fired now, for doing that, actually) put a restriction on recruits: must be taller than 185 cm; and weight must be at least 95 kg. Native Yakuts are small people, they cannot fit this. Slavics can though. That's State, or, at least, local government-sponsored, discrimination.

[Non Sequitur]

One question I'd have for anyone who thinks my answer is trite, is to say, will you accept the rule of a democratic majority if they choose to get rid of the Civil Rights Act, Title II? That is to say, if a democratic majority has the right to declare certain acts of discrimination to be illegal, it also has the right to declare certain acts of racial discrimination are legal.

I have no problem with this. This point is 100% consistent with my political position on a wide variety of issues. I suspect lots of people will disagree - many people love democratic majority rule when it rules the way they agree with. Support for democratic majority rule often goes out the window when one doesn't agree with the results.

see this is what makes me uncomfortable sometimes with the idea of democracy.

[Michael]

It should not be. Discrimination is discrimination. For example, at the market not far from where I live, a Muslim, Azerbaijani shopkeeper, after the whole incident with the Turkish Gaza aid ships, as part of the protest, put signs that said, well, not nice things about Jewish people. That's discrimination. By private business.
Actually, that's not discrimination at all. That's just free speech (or hate speech).

If the sign said "no jews allowed inside", that would be discriminatory.

In Siberian autonomous Republic, Sakha-Yakutia, head of local police (he's been fired now, for doing that, actually) put a restriction on recruits: must be taller than 185 cm; and weight must be at least 95 kg. Native Yakuts are small people, they cannot fit this. Slavics can though. That's State, or, at least, local government-sponsored, discrimination.
That's state sponsored discrimination. I don't think anyone disputes that the state must never be discriminatory about race. All citizens of the state are equal and must be treated that way by the state.

[Michael]

And you don't see that as circular? "The people should support whatever discrimination the people support"?
No, I consider it rather democratic.

And I definitely didn't used the phrasing "the people should...". That's the expression of a moral imperative and I don't do that since I don't accept the concept of universal morality existing in any way, shape or form. From my perspective where morality is relative and subjective, issuing of moral imperatives can only be interpreted as arbitrary and authoritarian.

I'm not sure I understand the equation of opinion with whim. I'd assumed that you based your political opinions on your analysis of the situation and general principles, rather than mere whimsy.
I equate opinion with subjective whim, because it is impossible to discern an actual difference between the two. Motive is always hidden as an 'interior state of mind' and can never be rationally proven, it can only assumed on faith. Human beings can be a rather tricky bunch. ;)

The point is that I have two opinions about most things. On the one hand, I have what I call my 'pseudo-objective opinion', which is entirely object oriented and based upon my most careful assessment of all the available facts and/or related data. On the other hand, I have what I'll call my 'purely subjective ego opinion', which is entirely self oriented (ie. its all about "me") and doesn't require any facts, data, logic or rational defense. It just is what appeals to me personally or emotionally (or sexually).

As a human being, I just can't get around these two approaches to issues. What I believe to be good for society is not always that which I believe to be best for me personally. Ergo, I have two opinions about most issues. One is 'pseudo-objective' (i.e. public/social/economic policy) and the other is entirely 'personal-subjective'.

And of course, given the fact that I reject the possibility of pure objectivity in any human being by definition of being human, I am certainly aware that my own attempts at objectivity will fall short of the mark, due to the subtle influences of my personal-subjectivity - hence the term 'pseudo-objectivity'.

Yes, it does seem that many of the people who are the greatest sticklers for "original intent" don't have a firm grasp on what that intent (or rather, what the various intents) was(/were).
As always, I reject "motive" as a meaningful term of reference, since it is entirely a subjective and interior conception and can never be 'known' outside the self (if even there).

The idea of "original intent" seems identical to the term "motive" in this precise context. Hence, I reject the idea of interpreting constitutional issues by the 'intent' of the framers.

The only manner of constitutional reading that I can accept is literalism since that is rationally defensible. If one looks to 'intent' (motive), one is playing with politics, not constitutional law.

[Michael]

I suppose that all depends on what "accept the rule of the democratic majority" means.

But I think it's fair to say that I'd vocally disagree if a national referendum rolled back civil rights legislation, perhaps even to the point of civil disobedience. I certainly don't have any belief that the democratic majority must always be right, or that the 'will of the majority' is some sacred thing which should never be defied, though in less extreme cases my respect for the rule of law and the integrity of the system means that I accept established law despite my disagreements.
However, looking back at history, I find that I applaud some of those who defied the will of the majority when it condoned or forced horrific practices (e.g. those who aided runaway slaves), even to the point of using force when absolutely necessary.

I'm certainly pleased when I learn that people agree with my opinions, but that doesn't mean that my opinions are determined by whatever "the will of the majority" is at the moment. Neither, I hope, are yours.

No, my opinions are rarely 'determined' by the will of any majority (to the best of my knowledge anyway). But my 'opinions' that are based on my 'pseudo-objective' assessment of public policy certainly do take the opinion of the majority (if known) into account as relevant data.

As for the majority always being "right", I think that's absurd as it represents a false dichotomy that every action must be either 'right or wrong by definition'. And that is only true if one holds to some undefined universal moral system as a first principle or moral imperative (and I certainly don't).

If one understands morality to be relative and subjective, then that is what gives acts of civil disobedience (or protest) substantive meaning. The law can be both right and wrong at the same time. Humans can follow the law and oppose the law at the same time. This is possible because morality is understood to be relative and subjective.

[WFCY]

I am in agreement with wphelan here. I think you are confusing the word "discrimination" with "making choices", or that you have taken the word's (discrimination) meaning to its broadest extent, that it is completely detached of the context of Rand Paul's political platforms. The women's clothing shop example is kind of like saying Chinese restaurants discriminate against Italians, and Italian restaurants discriminate against Chinese, and on and on and on- well, nobody is really interested in discussing "discrimination" of that sort. What we are discussing, is discrimination in the narrower sense: racism, sexism, such as in the Jim Crow era, or the Middle Ages. These are not hypothetical word games, these actually happened and still happen to people, and effect their lives. What Rand Paul and the rest of the Tea Party want is to be able to discriminate, to be racist and sexist if they so wish, on their private properties and businesses. They want the Federal government to keep its anti-discrimination laws to Federal domains only, and leave their private businesses alone to go back to Jim Crow.

It was not the Federal government that was primarily behind institutionalized racism back in Jim Crow, although public schools and leisure spaces certainly were segerated, and you hear about a racist sheriff here and there. Although it was responsible as well, its influence on a black person's life was limited.

The racism that affected a black person's livelihood the most, was in the jobs, private sectors, in acquiring equal opportunities and a fair standard of living as everyone else. It was when they go out to the shops, to restaurants, to their doctors, on a bus, to find a decent neighborhood to live, to be able to travel, and so on. These goods and services are almost completely supplied by the private sector both in the Jim Crow period and present day America.

What Rand Paul is suggesting is not so different from the arguments provided by racists during the Jim Crow era- they said: "give us freedom of speech, and our freedom to do what we want with our properties- we own this restaurant, we own this bus, it is in our Constitutional right to to express our racial hatred and to segregate or refuse service on our private properties. You can do what you want with the government, but leave our restaurants and buses alone!" Well, shops get government subsidies, tax breaks, they use public utilities, water, pavements, buses drive on roads, their employees received public education, etcetc, all publicly funded. This was pointed out by professor of history at North Carolina State University, Blair Kelley, for example. Even when there is absolutely no public financial support involved, directly or indirectly, which is next to impossible, it is highly questionable whether a shop owner has the right to segregate, or refuse service based on race.

There are still country clubs in England and in the US that refuse membership and entrance based on race and gender. Needless to say, they are highly exclusive, entirely private funded, and very unpopular. It is in Rand Paul and the rest of the so-called "Libertarians" ideal that all businesses should operate with that level of "liberty", or "freedom". You know- the "liberty" to limit and deny other people's liberty and choices. That's called a "free market".

It's not the first time I've said that classical libertarian ideals come into conflict with laissez faire capitalist market economy. When you put property right above all other rights, there can only be tyranny, not liberty. You can of course pay lip services all day to "liberty", that might make institutionalized racism look a little less obscene.

[dilettante]

It was not the Federal government that was primarily behind institutionalized racism back in Jim Crow, although public schools and leisure spaces certainly were segerated, and you hear about a racist sheriff here and there. Although it was responsible as well, its influence on a black person's life was limited.

A good point. I'd add that even the public schools and sheriffs you mention were not organs of the Federal government but of state/local government.

Race relations seem to be one of the clearest areas of American history in which the actions of 'big government' against individual and property rights were justified.

[dilettante]

Rather than trying to pursue you 'opinion' further, perhaps we can just build off this:

That's state sponsored discrimination. I don't think anyone disputes that the state must never be discriminatory about race. All citizens of the state are equal and must be treated that way by the state.

It's a given fact that all citizens of the state are not equal or treated that way by the state. As has been mentioned, the state discriminates regularly and openly by age and sex for example, and we often don't have a problem with that. What makes these forms of discrimination acceptable but not discrimination based on race?

I'll offer some thoughts of my own in case you'd rather respond than have to render your own opinions:

On the one hand there's the question of utility. Age discrimination has various practical uses (e.g. it's best that four year olds don't drive). Race discrimination rarely has practical uses, but instead is generally just mean-spirited and hateful and the government should not be allowed to discriminate for mean-spirited or hateful reasons.
Gender makes an interesting case in that to the extent that state discriminates by gender (such as male and female restrooms) the impetus often seems to be neither practicality nor mean-spiritedness but purely cultural. In some ways we've done a much better, though not perfect, job of achieving something along the lines of 'separate-but-equal' with regard to gender than with race. I think that's interesting.

On the other hand, there's history. Race is especially important because it's been the basis of such great evil in human history. Consequently, we treat it with a defensiveness that is ever wary of a return to darker times. That is to say, there's nothing special about skin-color (the primary identifier of 'race') as opposed to other means of discrimination which similarly lack utility which makes it especially bad. Yet we are especially wary of color-based discrimination, and actively forbid it even in the private sector, because of it's particular history and extent.

Then, I suppose on a third hand, there are those cases in which discrimination does have a clear practical purpose but is still forbidden (or at least limited). Discriminating against the handicapped, for instance. I'm not sure how to frame that. I'll have to think about it.

[WFCY]

A good point. I'd add that even the public schools and sheriffs you mention were not organs of the Federal government but of state/local government.

Race relations seem to be one of the clearest areas of American history in which the actions of 'big government' against individual and property rights were justified.

I mean, people like Rand Paul, or the American so-called "Libertarians", their basic ideal society, if you look at the kind of institutional framework they support instead of the nice little praises about freedom and liberty they constantly throw around- it's a kind of minarchist society, and for me it is a very extreme form of corporate authoritarinism.

In their ideal world, government should have no business in anything except the defence of private properties. The only functioning branches of the government should be: courts, police force, military, and prison. Democracy is not a necessary component of this kind of society, let the market decide everything.

What they are actually demanding, if you take their "liberty" "freedom" rhetoric seriously, is that government should not enforce any law within the confines of private properties, because anything the government does will distort and violate the functioning of a true market- they are not just talking about tax, tariff, welfare, labor protection laws, that kind of stuff. They are not just asking for the right to discriminate. You should be able to get away with murder and rape on your private property, or anything that requires state intervention in a normal society. Government intervention have absolutely no place in the realm of your private ownership, because your property is your absolute right. There should be no marriage laws in someone's home, since men and women or groups of people of the same sex can enter "contracts" at their own "free will". There should be no laws for compulsary education of children, or against child labor, in somebody's home, etc.

It may sound radical, but this is basically what Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Alan Greenspan have been advocating the whole time. Ayn Rand actually explicitly spelled out and praised such societies in her novels. The Chicago school of economics, under Friedman, puts them to practice in Latin America during the 70s and 80s. Some "Libertarians" may not see it eye to eye with those three, deluded by noble words and propaganda; and some would argue that "life" and "liberty" are on par with property rights in the "Libertarian" ideal society- but how would you maintain full property rights if the state must intervene at all times, to protect the first two rights, life and liberty? The "Libertarian" answer has always been putting property above life and liberty when these conflicts arise. This is repeatedly demonstrated and once again by Rand Paul- who cares about the liberty of black people when a white man's business is concerned? So there is no mischaracterization or exaggeration here. These guys want a minarchist, night-watchman state.

[WFCY]

...Ayn Rand actually explicitly spelled out and praised such societies in her novels...

Just to supplement- I was referring to Galt's Gulch, for example. If you read Rand's description of it, it's a complete caricature or rather, a ludicrous romanticization of what would otherwise be an extremely savage society if ever allowed to exist in reality. In this world, there is no such thing as scarcity, because gold falls from the sky (Midas Mulligan, you know, the friendly banker who just loves giving away his money), and Galt's inventions takes care of the rest, this guy can build things from door locks, to anti-matter power plants. Besides these wonderful feats, nobody ever has any prejudices towards anybody else, so there is no problem at all. Another triumph of the will of men!

[Michael]

I am in agreement with wphelan here. I think you are confusing the word "discrimination" with "making choices", or that you have taken the word's (discrimination) meaning to its broadest extent, that it is completely detached of the context of Rand Paul's political platforms. The women's clothing shop example is kind of like saying Chinese restaurants discriminate against Italians, and Italian restaurants discriminate against Chinese, and on and on and on- well, nobody is really interested in discussing "discrimination" of that sort. What we are discussing, is discrimination in the narrower sense: racism, sexism, such as in the Jim Crow era, or the Middle Ages. These are not hypothetical word games, these actually happened and still happen to people, and effect their lives. What Rand Paul and the rest of the Tea Party want is to be able to discriminate, to be racist and sexist if they so wish, on their private properties and businesses. They want the Federal government to keep its anti-discrimination laws to Federal domains only, and leave their private businesses alone to go back to Jim Crow.
As I keep trying to point out, this is not a hypothetical word game at all. Discrimination is what we do when we make choices, this is very common and normal practice. Private society and the commercial market discriminates against poor people all the time. I've already shown how age discrimination is extremely common, likewise with nationality/citizenship. The point is that most types of 'discrimination' are perfectly legal.

My point here is only to show just how difficult it is to isolate particular and specific types of discrimination in the market and focus a law against it without creating extensive and wide-sweeping powers of government authority.

I'm certainly not offering an argument in defense of racial discrimination in private markets. As I've always stated, a democratic majority does have the right to legislate rules/regulations upon any human activity it so chooses - including private markets, private property and private capital.

It was not the Federal government that was primarily behind institutionalized racism back in Jim Crow, although public schools and leisure spaces certainly were segerated, and you hear about a racist sheriff here and there. Although it was responsible as well, its influence on a black person's life was limited.

The racism that affected a black person's livelihood the most, was in the jobs, private sectors, in acquiring equal opportunities and a fair standard of living as everyone else. It was when they go out to the shops, to restaurants, to their doctors, on a bus, to find a decent neighborhood to live, to be able to travel, and so on. These goods and services are almost completely supplied by the private sector both in the Jim Crow period and present day America.

What Rand Paul is suggesting is not so different from the arguments provided by racists during the Jim Crow era- they said: "give us freedom of speech, and our freedom to do what we want with our properties- we own this restaurant, we own this bus, it is in our Constitutional right to to express our racial hatred and to segregate or refuse service on our private properties. You can do what you want with the government, but leave our restaurants and buses alone!" Well, shops get government subsidies, tax breaks, they use public utilities, water, pavements, buses drive on roads, their employees received public education, etcetc, all publicly funded. This was pointed out by professor of history at North Carolina State University, Blair Kelley, for example. Even when there is absolutely no public financial support involved, directly or indirectly, which is next to impossible, it is highly questionable whether a shop owner has the right to segregate, or refuse service based on race.

There are still country clubs in England and in the US that refuse membership and entrance based on race and gender. Needless to say, they are highly exclusive, entirely private funded, and very unpopular. It is in Rand Paul and the rest of the so-called "Libertarians" ideal that all businesses should operate with that level of "liberty", or "freedom". You know- the "liberty" to limit and deny other people's liberty and choices. That's called a "free market".

It's not the first time I've said that classical libertarian ideals come into conflict with laissez faire capitalist market economy. When you put property right above all other rights, there can only be tyranny, not liberty. You can of course pay lip services all day to "liberty", that might make institutionalized racism look a little less obscene.

Yes, this is a common problem with almost all rightwing-libertarian views of liberty. They hold that the 'right' of liberty originates from the individuals themselves, and ignores the fact that private property and the liberty of citizenship are privileges granted by the state and enforced through the administration of the rule of law.

As a sidenote, I think the 6th-8th century AD Western Europe showed very well what happens to the rights of private property and liberty of citizens when the ruling state apparatus is eliminated/removed from operation.

[dilettante]

I am in agreement with wphelan here. I think you are confusing the word "discrimination" with "making choices", or that you have taken the word's (discrimination) meaning to its broadest extent, that it is completely detached of the context of Rand Paul's political platforms. The women's clothing shop example is kind of like saying Chinese restaurants discriminate against Italians, and Italian restaurants discriminate against Chinese, and on and on and on- well, nobody is really interested in discussing "discrimination" of that sort. What we are discussing, is discrimination in the narrower sense: racism, sexism, such as in the Jim Crow era, or the Middle Ages. These are not hypothetical word games, these actually happened and still happen to people, and effect their lives. What Rand Paul and the rest of the Tea Party want is to be able to discriminate, to be racist and sexist if they so wish, on their private properties and businesses. They want the Federal government to keep its anti-discrimination laws to Federal domains only, and leave their private businesses alone to go back to Jim Crow.


As I keep trying to point out, this is not a hypothetical word game at all. Discrimination is what we do when we make choices, this is very common and normal practice. Private society and the commercial market discriminates against poor people all the time. I've already shown how age discrimination is extremely common, likewise with nationality/citizenship. The point is that most types of 'discrimination' are perfectly legal.

My point here is only to show just how difficult it is to isolate particular and specific types of discrimination in the market and focus a law against it without creating extensive and wide-sweeping powers of government authority.

I'm certainly not offering an argument in defense of racial discrimination in private markets. As I've always stated, a democratic majority does have the right to legislate rules/regulations upon any human activity it so chooses - including private markets, private property and private capital.


Perhaps we could simply limit the topic to direct discrimination against people as opposed to objects or things? E.G. The Italian restaurant only directly "discriminates" against Chinese food; it treats Chinese people the same way it treats Italian people, etc. On the other hand, the "No Jews Allowed" sign discriminates directly against specific people, not things.

Does that suffice as a clear dividing line?

[Michael]

Rather than trying to pursue you 'opinion' further, perhaps we can just build off this:



It's a given fact that all citizens of the state are not equal or treated that way by the state. As has been mentioned, the state discriminates regularly and openly by age and sex for example, and we often don't have a problem with that. What makes these forms of discrimination acceptable but not discrimination based on race?
As I've been saying all along, discrimination per se, is entirely acceptable and is not a problem. It is only particular and specific types of discrimination that are deemed to be problematic (ie. race).

Thus, society has relatively few political problems tolerating countless rules that discriminate based on age, gender, nationality, wealth, intelligence, education level, geography, job experience, criminal records, etcetera.

Just because one might believe that one type of discrimination is morally bad and ought to be illegal, that does not mean (by definition) that all types of discrimination are morally bad and ought to be illegal.

As I keep pointing out, lots of common discriminations are perfectly okay. Just one type is held to be a problem.

I'll offer some thoughts of my own in case you'd rather respond than have to render your own opinions:

On the one hand there's the question of utility. Age discrimination has various practical uses (e.g. it's best that four year olds don't drive). Race discrimination rarely has practical uses, but instead is generally just mean-spirited and hateful and the government should not be allowed to discriminate for mean-spirited or hateful reasons.
Gender makes an interesting case in that to the extent that state discriminates by gender (such as male and female restrooms) the impetus often seems to be neither practicality nor mean-spiritedness but purely cultural. In some ways we've done a much better, though not perfect, job of achieving something along the lines of 'separate-but-equal' with regard to gender than with race. I think that's interesting.

On the other hand, there's history. Race is especially important because it's been the basis of such great evil in human history. Consequently, we treat it with a defensiveness that is ever wary of a return to darker times. That is to say, there's nothing special about skin-color (the primary identifier of 'race') as opposed to other means of discrimination which similarly lack utility which makes it especially bad. Yet we are especially wary of color-based discrimination, and actively forbid it even in the private sector, because of it's particular history and extent.

Then, I suppose on a third hand, there are those cases in which discrimination does have a clear practical purpose but is still forbidden (or at least limited). Discriminating against the handicapped, for instance. I'm not sure how to frame that. I'll have to think about it.
You seem to be looking for an argument that supplies the 'moral justification' for the banning of racial discrimination in private markets. That's all well and fine, I'm just not particularly inclined to make that inquiry since I don't think that's rationally viable from my atheist and relativist perspective (and part of the reason I've been 'dodging' your particular question).

Apart from that, you have admirably pointed out that other forms of discrimination that are permitted have some material 'utility' where as racial discrimination appears to have none. That's a good argument - except perhaps the gender exemple and that one I think points at the real issue/problem here - human culture.

Unfortunately, that particular argument falls down on its own principle. If moral justification is sufficient justification (ie. culture), then one is faced with the prospect that some people may hold it morally justified to treat some races as 'sub-human'. How does one reconcile one's morality against another? Which one trumps the other? Moral reasoning always runs up against moral relativism.

All that being said, I think your utility argument has merit, and I think that is the one that ought to be used with respect to the legislation of any laws pertaining to the banning of racial discrimination in private markets. It is rationally defensible on that grounds, though it is ultimately, just a moral assertion in the final analysis - since it is contradicted by the gender issue on the same grounds (lacking 'utility', but still permitted/accepted).

[Michael]

Perhaps we could simply limit the topic to direct discrimination against people as opposed to objects or things? E.G. The Italian restaurant only directly "discriminates" against Chinese food; it treats Chinese people the same way it treats Italian people, etc. On the other hand, the "No Jews Allowed" sign discriminates directly against specific people, not things.

Does that suffice as a clear dividing line?
I don't accept the inherent existence of a dividing line at all.

This topic is all about using the law to create that dividing line in order to serve a moral purpose (racial equality).

Merely assuming that a specific dividing line naturally exists (as a moral imperative), isn't acceptable to me. I have no faith in that.

I am certainly willing to accept the creation of a dividing line here by order of a democratic majority. I'm just pointing out that the line doesn't naturally exist for easy identification.

[Michael]

Just to supplement- I was referring to Galt's Gulch, for example. If you read Rand's description of it, it's a complete caricature or rather, a ludicrous romanticization of what would otherwise be an extremely savage society if ever allowed to exist in reality. In this world, there is no such thing as scarcity, because gold falls from the sky (Midas Mulligan, you know, the friendly banker who just loves giving away his money), and Galt's inventions takes care of the rest, this guy can build things from door locks, to anti-matter power plants. Besides these wonderful feats, nobody ever has any prejudices towards anybody else, so there is no problem at all. Another triumph of the will of men!

For what it's worth, I always found Atlas Shrugged to be the weaker of the two famous novels. It seemed too much like a distopian/utopian fantasy (and very long and boring). The Fountainhead was much more closely grounded in reality and therefore provided a stronger or more realistic illustration of the same argument - and seems to be a much better novel. :shrug:

[Michael]

Race relations seem to be one of the clearest areas of American history in which the actions of 'big government' against individual and property rights were justified.

This appears to be a clear cut case of a democratic majority willing a moral principle into law. :D