cab21 Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 looking over the case of in oregon where a business was determined to violate the law by discriminating based on sexual orientation, it made me wonder about discrimination. looking at a objectivist answer, the speaker says that government can't discriminate, but citizens can. i am wondering why there is a principle that government can't discriminate? trade by mutual consent is brought up as to why individuals should have the right to discriminate, but why would this not apply to government? i think with private dispute resolution organizations, there is mutual consent amung the people in the organizations, but is government not supposed to have this mutual consent because it's not ok for the government to discriminate, while it's citizens can refuse to trade with each other?
Mister Mister Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 The "right to discriminate" is the right of free association. Really, "rights" is not the best way to look at it, but rather, to associate or dissociate with people for whatever reason, is not the initiation of force. One may do this for irrational reasons, they may be petty or cruel or foolish, but it is fundamentally not immoral to say "I don't do business with people who are shorter than six feet", "I only date blue-eyed women", or "I am not friends with people who like blow-jobs".Also, one person's "right" to discriminate based on shallow characteristics of birth such as race or gender or sexual orientation, is your or my right to discriminate based on that person's irrational preferences. This way, society can negotiate these things peacefully, based on the withdrawal of resources from, or provision of resources to, those with whom are values are aligned. When instead we appeal to the government to just impose values on the minority by majority opinion, we are escalating conflict with FORCE, rather than negotiating the conflict with reason. If a person refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, is imposing a government penalty of $100,000 dollars on them really a rational and just response? Is this the way to make social progress? Tolerance of homosexuality and other sexual deviations has made enormous progress without initiating force over the last half a century, do they really need to start picking up guns? Why not just allow the bigots to show themselves, and direct our resources towards those who are more accepting?I have heard religious conservatives say stuff like "I don't care what you do in your own bedroom, just don't force it on me", and I used to think that's ridiculous, no one is forcing anything on you - I thought they were just talking about the fear that their kids would see two men kiss in public or on TV. But now, I kinda see their point. It's ridiculous and out of control and can only escalate from here until people come to their senses.And yes, as long as we have a government, it ought to be as color-blind and gender-blind as possible, but the Left are the biggest culprits of making it otherwise so.I hope that makes some sense. 2
shirgall Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 People attack discrimination because ultimately they do not trust people with the freedom to choose who they trade with on whatever terms they like. Except, of course, that is the essence of getting to win win negotiations. 1
SigmaTau Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 quote i am wondering why there is a principle that government can't discriminate? a bit of a godwin but do you remember "No jews aloud" in history newsreals? didnt turn out so well. People in the US complain about the big social engineering superstate, but frankly that superstate didnt fall out of the sky. When the US state was much smaller then it is today and less intrusive and its growth much easier to control, the minarchist (*Coufgh*) south thought it was a good idea to implement black codes (marriage licenses and gun control). And nobody made a fuss about it because it wasn't being applied to them,.., right? Fastforward and now everybody has the black codes applied to them. That's what you get when people hated others more then they loved their own freedom. Seems that lesson hasnt been learned yet. Here is a tidbit of history about about govenment discrimination
PatrickC Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 looking at a objectivist answer, the speaker says that government can't discriminate, but citizens can. i am wondering why there is a principle that government can't discriminate? Yes, I think it's fanciful (magical) thinking from an Objectivist. It's why they reject anarchism, because they truly believe their kind of govt will be a 'good' and objective one. I understand the principle he is trying to apply to govts. Technically they should be impartial and apply the laws evenly. The reality is, this has never happened and govts end up discriminating all the same, as they do now. Another thing, discrimination is more than just race, gender and sexual proclivities of course. Govts quite happily discriminate between higher and lower income earners. Companies that recieve subsidy and those that don't. Taxing products or services differently. Cheap social housing provision for the few, whilst the rest of us have to join the market for accomodation. The govt literally disciminates all the time.
thebeardslastcall Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 Good people want you to discriminate and choose them over bad people. Bad people don't want you to discriminate and choose someone else over them. Government is based on thievery and violence. Government must therefore institute anti-discrimination to protect the evil people from the good people that would push them out of society and cause a degradation to their pillaging ways. Political correctness and anti-discrimination cloaked as some ridiculous notion of equality is just evil guarding evil and doing what it always does, pretending to be good. Losers don't want to accept defeat so they get violent and camouflage their activities and pretend to be victims in need of forceful protection. They'll defend attacks with statements like "blaming the victim", but the truth is they aren't the victims, but aggressors who failed. They'll start a fight, lose the fight, and then cry "they beat me up!" and seek reparations. The essence of evil is a denial of the right to discriminate. 1
cab21 Posted July 13, 2015 Author Posted July 13, 2015 say the governments allows business and private discrimination, as that's not a crime of the initiation of force. but the government would not purchase from business that do commit crimes such as the initiation of force, because to do so the government would be rewarding and participating in the initiation of force? i think objectivism wants the government to be voluntarily funded, so noone would be forced to fund this government if the person did not want to. im not sure about government contracts through, but i guess the government could contract with business that discriminate, but could have rules about contracts with those that have been convicted of committing crimes such as the initiation of force. i was initially thinking, if a business was to discriminate in certain disallowed ways, then government could discriminate against the business, but not making any purchases from the business until the business changed. changing that to the government would only make it so the government would not contract with business that have committed crimes, and discrimination alone would never be a crime.
fractional slacker Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Similar to what thebeardslastcall call just posted. Governments can not discriminate anymore than unicorns can, because they are both a fiction. Discrimination is one of these trigger words that gets thrown around and used in arguments from emotion. Discrimination is the essence of a free market. The free market is blessing for those that do good, and a curse to those who refuse to do good. The truth discriminates against falsehood and vice versa. The job of the sophist/politician/preacher/and public school teacher is to disguise falsehood as truth. The job of the philosopher is expose the falsehood of the sophist.
DrTruthiness Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 I'm wondering why there is a principle that government can't discriminate? I can only speak to the American philosophy behind this concept. And mind you, the philosophical concept. Not the way America actually followed through on it historically. Philosophically, the founding fathers concluded that government was not meant to rule mankind. It was meant to secure the natural rights philosophers like John Locke had written about--life, liberty, and property. And to the degree that government infringed on those natural rights, men had the right to disband or fight back to secure them as a check against tyranny. So the concept of government not having the right to discriminate, at least in American government, is rooted in the principle that it's sole purpose is to be a protector of rights that actually supercede its authority. Not, alternatively, to be a grantor of rights and privileges that it can extend and restrict based on political whims and ambitions. It was a profound blueprint for government; it literally mists my eyes up reading the founding documents. It lasted for about 3 seconds before the pen went on to write in the legalization of slavery and a kick to the nutsack in taxes. I think the lesson learned here is NO. NO YOU CAN NOT WEAR THE RING OF POWER.
shirgall Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 I think the lesson learned here is NO. NO YOU CAN NOT WEAR THE RING OF POWER. While Tolkien supposedly despised allegory, I always interpreting the many rings (9 for men, 3 for elves, 7 for dwarves) as an allusion to the separation of powers in representative governments and how they utterly failed to prevent tyranny (the one ring).
cab21 Posted July 15, 2015 Author Posted July 15, 2015 I can only speak to the American philosophy behind this concept. And mind you, the philosophical concept. Not the way America actually followed through on it historically. Philosophically, the founding fathers concluded that government was not meant to rule mankind. It was meant to secure the natural rights philosophers like John Locke had written about--life, liberty, and property. And to the degree that government infringed on those natural rights, men had the right to disband or fight back to secure them as a check against tyranny. So the concept of government not having the right to discriminate, at least in American government, is rooted in the principle that it's sole purpose is to be a protector of rights that actually supercede its authority. Not, alternatively, to be a grantor of rights and privileges that it can extend and restrict based on political whims and ambitions. It was a profound blueprint for government; it literally mists my eyes up reading the founding documents. It lasted for about 3 seconds before the pen went on to write in the legalization of slavery and a kick to the nutsack in taxes. I think the lesson learned here is NO. NO YOU CAN NOT WEAR THE RING OF POWER. it looks like government would just discriminate against those that have broken what government is supposed to protect. ie the offender does not get full political standing as the non offender of these rights that exist outside government?
Recommended Posts