5 ms·

Many regulations of this sort - particularly within the taxi space - are merely economic protectionism favoring one group over another. Suppose the "no black pe

Many regulations of this sort - particularly within the taxi space - are merely economic protectionism favoring one group over another. Suppose the "no black people" limit were merely designed for economic protectionism with no malicious intent. Would that make it acceptable? You can add to it various pretexts as erroneous and ineffective justification, e.g. "black people are more likely to be dangerous criminals than non-blacks, we don't want passengers getting robbed", if that makes the question clearer. I'm also confused by your last line. Why do you believe I'm "pretending" something? I'm simply pointing out what the core philosophical question is. I know how I justify my moral positions - my opposition to protectionism (either pro-white or pro-medallion owner) is driven by my opposition to violence. But when you give up opposition to violence - which you must do if it's acceptable to protect medallion owners with violence - I don't know how to oppose pro-white protectionism. What makes non-whites deserving of protection from bad laws but non-medallion owners undeserving?

tptacek 11y ago
I'm not going to dignify an argument that suggests that because some regulations might be erroneous, have unintended consequences, or even be crafted specifically to favor some particular group, that most regulations are therefore equivalent to institutionalized racism. To me, that's really just a veiled swipe at the idea that institutionalized racism is a uniquely toxic problem.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  It's not a "veiled swipe" at all. I'm pretty explicitly stating that I consider racism to be extrinsically bad - I only care when it causes intrinsically bad actions like protectionism, and that protectionist acts which are non-racist are also bad. I get the impression you have a different moral conclusion, but I have no idea how you reach it in a logically consistent manner. I take it you refuse to state your principles?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I am not required to provide you with a first-principles reasoning for why racism is bad. I get the impression that you'd like that requirement to be the norm here, but it is not. There's not much of a reason to let this subthread get any deeper, is there?
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Clearly no one is required to do anything. I merely interpreted your repeated replies to me as an attempt to engage in intellectual discussion, and I was attempting to participate. That's normally what one does on HN. Perhaps I misinterpreted and you were merely replying in an attempt to raise your status at my expense? If so, my apologies, and I accept your victory. You are a high status, mainstream person with values within the Overton window. I'm a weird nerd who follows his reasoning to wrongthink. Congrats!
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - YuriNiyazov 11y ago
        "You are a high status, mainstream person with values within the Overton window." - that is a very strange thing to accuse tptacek of.
mistersquid 11y ago
> What makes non-whites deserving of protection from bad laws but non-medallion owners undeserving? In the United States, this question is answered by Federal Laws which define Protected Classes [0]. Non-medallion owners are not a protected class (yet) according to US Federal Law. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class EDIT: provide link
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Totally true, and not what is being discussed. To quote myself a couple of lines up: "We are all aware that the law has various (mostly arbitrary) limits. The question being asked is what consistent limit should be applied in general?" I.e. the question is "aught", you are merely reiterating what "is" (which no one disagrees with).
  - mistersquid 10y ago
    The idea that a protected class as defined by US Federal Law can be determined by a "consistent limit [to] be applied in general" is a categorical misunderstanding of the term protected class. Furthermore, the designation of a protected class is hardly the outcome of "(mostly) arbitrary limits". A quick visit to the link I provided in my earlier comment shows a diverse range of peoples grouped together as protected classes • Race • Color • Religion • Nationality • Age • Sex • Pregnancy • Citizenship • Familial status • Veteran status • Genetic information These groups are not identified by any "consistent limit" but by a wide range of legislation and case law. Protected classes are defined by the judicious and careful application of expert legal opinion among practitioners of jurisprudence and writers of US Federal legislation, practitioners who include but are not limited to Senators, members of Congress, scholars, historians, judges, attorneys, and expert witnesses. In other words, there is no way to apply a rigid set of parameters ("consistent limit") to find what group of people should constitute a protected class. Additionally, there are many considerations in establishing a protected class, some of those being whether membership in such a class is voluntary as well as whether members of a proposed protected class have historically, culturally, and socioeconomically been subject to unjust discrimination. Now, whether non-medallion owning contractors ought to be a protected class I cannot say, but I can say that such a designation will not come from facile calls for consistency in determining members of a protected class. EDIT: grammar, formatting, augmentation of series

tptacek 11y ago

I'm not going to dignify an argument that suggests that because some regulations might be erroneous, have unintended consequences, or even be crafted specifically to favor some particular group, that most regulations are therefore equivalent to institutionalized racism. To me, that's really just a veiled swipe at the idea that institutionalized racism is a uniquely toxic problem.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
It's not a "veiled swipe" at all. I'm pretty explicitly stating that I consider racism to be extrinsically bad - I only care when it causes intrinsically bad actions like protectionism, and that protectionist acts which are non-racist are also bad. I get the impression you have a different moral conclusion, but I have no idea how you reach it in a logically consistent manner. I take it you refuse to state your principles?
- tptacek 11y ago
  I am not required to provide you with a first-principles reasoning for why racism is bad. I get the impression that you'd like that requirement to be the norm here, but it is not. There's not much of a reason to let this subthread get any deeper, is there?
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Clearly no one is required to do anything. I merely interpreted your repeated replies to me as an attempt to engage in intellectual discussion, and I was attempting to participate. That's normally what one does on HN. Perhaps I misinterpreted and you were merely replying in an attempt to raise your status at my expense? If so, my apologies, and I accept your victory. You are a high status, mainstream person with values within the Overton window. I'm a weird nerd who follows his reasoning to wrongthink. Congrats!
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - YuriNiyazov 11y ago
      "You are a high status, mainstream person with values within the Overton window." - that is a very strange thing to accuse tptacek of.

mistersquid 11y ago

> What makes non-whites deserving of protection from bad laws but non-medallion owners undeserving? In the United States, this question is answered by Federal Laws which define Protected Classes [0]. Non-medallion owners are not a protected class (yet) according to US Federal Law. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class EDIT: provide link

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Totally true, and not what is being discussed. To quote myself a couple of lines up: "We are all aware that the law has various (mostly arbitrary) limits. The question being asked is what consistent limit should be applied in general?" I.e. the question is "aught", you are merely reiterating what "is" (which no one disagrees with).
- mistersquid 10y ago
  The idea that a protected class as defined by US Federal Law can be determined by a "consistent limit [to] be applied in general" is a categorical misunderstanding of the term protected class. Furthermore, the designation of a protected class is hardly the outcome of "(mostly) arbitrary limits". A quick visit to the link I provided in my earlier comment shows a diverse range of peoples grouped together as protected classes • Race • Color • Religion • Nationality • Age • Sex • Pregnancy • Citizenship • Familial status • Veteran status • Genetic information These groups are not identified by any "consistent limit" but by a wide range of legislation and case law. Protected classes are defined by the judicious and careful application of expert legal opinion among practitioners of jurisprudence and writers of US Federal legislation, practitioners who include but are not limited to Senators, members of Congress, scholars, historians, judges, attorneys, and expert witnesses. In other words, there is no way to apply a rigid set of parameters ("consistent limit") to find what group of people should constitute a protected class. Additionally, there are many considerations in establishing a protected class, some of those being whether membership in such a class is voluntary as well as whether members of a proposed protected class have historically, culturally, and socioeconomically been subject to unjust discrimination. Now, whether non-medallion owning contractors ought to be a protected class I cannot say, but I can say that such a designation will not come from facile calls for consistency in determining members of a protected class. EDIT: grammar, formatting, augmentation of series