4 ms·

Yes, it is. It shouldn't be illegal to exercise racist values in one's business decisions. The job of government is not to police our motivation and values, or,

by aminok 10y ago

Yes, it is. It shouldn't be illegal to exercise racist values in one's business decisions. The job of government is not to police our motivation and values, or, in the name of making the world more fair, to play the role of a self-righteous Robin Hood and commandeer the resources of private citizens in order to redistribute them equitably.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Except for the numerous cases it does. Like murder, traffic behavior, private property, religion and on and on.
- aminok 10y ago
  The subtext in my comment is that the proper role of government is not to do those things I mentioned. And policing violations of other's right to their person or property, in prosecuting murder, and managing public property, in instituting and enforcing traffic rules, is absolutely a proper role for the government.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    I got the subtext, thanks. The role of government is to avoid unnecessary pain and disorder. Discouraging bigots and racists from hurting others is arguably also a proper role. Consider: things done in the name of racism anywhere but on the premises of their otherwise-public business could be classed a hate crime. But we want that to be ok in special places? Really?
    - aminok 10y ago
      Then why did you write: "Except for the numerous cases it does", when you understood that I was making a normative statement, rather than a positive one? The role of government is not to avoid unnecessary pain. Government is a collectively formed institution given a set of powers to provide goods we cannot provide for ourselves individually. There is no objective reason why people, acting through their government, have a right to violate the rights of others, when clearly people have no such right when acting in the individual capacity. They do not have a right to make racist motives or hiring practices illegal, because it hurts their feelings.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        That's one view, not substantiated by history or anything. Government constantly and pervasively controls the actions and defines the rights of the individual. Almost by definition. "Providing goods" may be an ideal government that could be achieved some day somewhere. But not a working definition of any government in existence. And trivializing the harm done by racist hiring practices is disingenuous. Its not just 'hurting feelings'; its marginalizing citizens en masse.
        aminok 10y ago
        Suggesting a moral view can be substantiated by history, and that because mine is not, it is not valid, is intellectually dishonest. Moral views can neither be validated nor invalidated by the historical record. Many practices, like slavery, that we now consider deeply immoral, were in place for thousands of years before the majority came to believe in their immorality. The fact that something has been done throughout history neither tells us it is moral, nor that it is immoral. I think if you strip away the ideology (modern liberalism), the labels (government) and the appeals to convention ("this has been done for hundreds of years"), and look at the practice you are endorsing for what it is, it is clear that it is immoral. You're saying that you and I have a right to threaten John with violence, because John won't hire Rhonda due to her race. That is what all government mandates are based on: violence, and you want to use them to make actions that in no way violate another party's rights subject to violently enforced punishment, if they are based on a particular set of values, or refuse to help a particular party we want helped.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Idealist sophomores always leap from 'rule of law' to 'threats of violence'. Sounds gruesome and extreme. But most government most place most of the time its just social pressure. Fines for parking in the wrong place. A visit from a social worker. Lines painted on the highway. Jumping from those to violence is disingenuous.
        10y ago

by aminok 10y ago

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Except for the numerous cases it does. Like murder, traffic behavior, private property, religion and on and on.

aminok 10y ago
The subtext in my comment is that the proper role of government is not to do those things I mentioned. And policing violations of other's right to their person or property, in prosecuting murder, and managing public property, in instituting and enforcing traffic rules, is absolutely a proper role for the government.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  I got the subtext, thanks. The role of government is to avoid unnecessary pain and disorder. Discouraging bigots and racists from hurting others is arguably also a proper role. Consider: things done in the name of racism anywhere but on the premises of their otherwise-public business could be classed a hate crime. But we want that to be ok in special places? Really?
  - aminok 10y ago
    Then why did you write: "Except for the numerous cases it does", when you understood that I was making a normative statement, rather than a positive one? The role of government is not to avoid unnecessary pain. Government is a collectively formed institution given a set of powers to provide goods we cannot provide for ourselves individually. There is no objective reason why people, acting through their government, have a right to violate the rights of others, when clearly people have no such right when acting in the individual capacity. They do not have a right to make racist motives or hiring practices illegal, because it hurts their feelings.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      That's one view, not substantiated by history or anything. Government constantly and pervasively controls the actions and defines the rights of the individual. Almost by definition. "Providing goods" may be an ideal government that could be achieved some day somewhere. But not a working definition of any government in existence. And trivializing the harm done by racist hiring practices is disingenuous. Its not just 'hurting feelings'; its marginalizing citizens en masse.
      - aminok 10y ago
        Suggesting a moral view can be substantiated by history, and that because mine is not, it is not valid, is intellectually dishonest. Moral views can neither be validated nor invalidated by the historical record. Many practices, like slavery, that we now consider deeply immoral, were in place for thousands of years before the majority came to believe in their immorality. The fact that something has been done throughout history neither tells us it is moral, nor that it is immoral. I think if you strip away the ideology (modern liberalism), the labels (government) and the appeals to convention ("this has been done for hundreds of years"), and look at the practice you are endorsing for what it is, it is clear that it is immoral. You're saying that you and I have a right to threaten John with violence, because John won't hire Rhonda due to her race. That is what all government mandates are based on: violence, and you want to use them to make actions that in no way violate another party's rights subject to violently enforced punishment, if they are based on a particular set of values, or refuse to help a particular party we want helped.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Idealist sophomores always leap from 'rule of law' to 'threats of violence'. Sounds gruesome and extreme. But most government most place most of the time its just social pressure. Fines for parking in the wrong place. A visit from a social worker. Lines painted on the highway. Jumping from those to violence is disingenuous.
        10y ago