6 ms·

True, but by the same token, there is a clear distinction between these two opinions: 1) I believe the government should outlaw firing people based on what the

True, but by the same token, there is a clear distinction between these two opinions: 1) I believe the government should outlaw firing people based on what they say in the office 2) I believe that companies should not fire people based on what they say in the office. Believing in small government doesn't mean you have no opinion on cultural norms. It just means you don't think the government should enforce them. But you're also right that many modern "conservatives" don't grasp the distinction.

syshum 6y ago
it is not just conservatives that do not grasp that The 2 statements are the difference between a liberty minded person and the authority minded person Liberty mined (or libertarian) can easily separate their personal beliefs on what is "proper" but still allow that other people may view differently and as long as they are not harming them (or anyone else) should be allowed to live their life in the manner they deem "proper" Authority minded people (or Authoritarian) can not do this, they believe their worldview is the "right" or "correct" world view and that must be imposed upon everyone, by force if necessary. These 2 mindsets exist in both "Left" and "Right" political orthodoxy
- pas 6y ago
  The world is not this simple. There are some speech that should be protected and some that maybe should be banned. (Eg. criticism of the workplace [see also calls for forming a labor union], whistle-blowing of illegal activities ... and on the other end, maybe abusing and harassing people based on their skin color, voice, and other elements of one's "phenotype", and maybe there should be some very basic beliefs that ought to be protected.) Both of these absolutes (full libertari[ani]sm and full authoritarianism) are doomed to fail, and even throwing them out as some nice first principles to start from seems to be borderline useless. (At least it seems the last 10+ years of politics is throwing memes at each other that have been reduced to absurdity.)
- notahacker 6y ago
  And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do. Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence, the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections in the sphere of employment. You'll find a large set of people with a general presumption in favour of protecting political speech including some which they find disagreeable, but even involves debating where to draw the line, because speech which is ostensibly political can to differing degrees also be abusive, damaging to staff relations, bringing the company into disrepute, contrary to professional ethics, directly undermining the organization's position etc. And of course who should be given stronger-than-average protections is also a matter of some debate, and you'll usually find plenty of people arguing for government protections on the freedom of conscience for racists but not homosexuals and vice versa. Some people believe in restricting employers with more general presumptions in favour of speech than others, but assessing which ones and why is more useful than simply claiming the other side is more authoritarian, especially when those arguing for fire-at-will for any reason also consider themselves to be doing so on libertarian grounds.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do. Where do you draw this conclusion from? What government restrictions do you believe liberty minded people are calling for? >>Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections. I am not sure what this is even referencing. I have read this line a few times and I am not sure what you are trying to convey It sounds like this is a restatement of the grandparent ,you are talking about what a company should or should not do, vs what a government should or should not prohibit with the force of law. A company choosing to fire someone for X speech is vastly different than a government protecting an employee from being fired, or forcing a company to fire someone for said speech Government action is authoritarian by its very nature. I do not believe people should be fired from their jobs for their speech but at the same time I do not support government intervention in the free association of those businesses, that would have far worse consequences >And of course who should be given stronger-than-average protections is also a matter of some debate It should not be a debate at all, Equality under the law should be universal. This is one of the core problems today is we keep trying to fix past injustice with more injustice under the law The only way to break the cycle is to make every individual the exact same under the law. > Some people believe in restricting employers Yes and those people are called Authoritarians

syshum 6y ago

it is not just conservatives that do not grasp that The 2 statements are the difference between a liberty minded person and the authority minded person Liberty mined (or libertarian) can easily separate their personal beliefs on what is "proper" but still allow that other people may view differently and as long as they are not harming them (or anyone else) should be allowed to live their life in the manner they deem "proper" Authority minded people (or Authoritarian) can not do this, they believe their worldview is the "right" or "correct" world view and that must be imposed upon everyone, by force if necessary. These 2 mindsets exist in both "Left" and "Right" political orthodoxy

pas 6y ago
The world is not this simple. There are some speech that should be protected and some that maybe should be banned. (Eg. criticism of the workplace [see also calls for forming a labor union], whistle-blowing of illegal activities ... and on the other end, maybe abusing and harassing people based on their skin color, voice, and other elements of one's "phenotype", and maybe there should be some very basic beliefs that ought to be protected.) Both of these absolutes (full libertari[ani]sm and full authoritarianism) are doomed to fail, and even throwing them out as some nice first principles to start from seems to be borderline useless. (At least it seems the last 10+ years of politics is throwing memes at each other that have been reduced to absurdity.)
notahacker 6y ago
And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do. Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence, the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections in the sphere of employment. You'll find a large set of people with a general presumption in favour of protecting political speech including some which they find disagreeable, but even involves debating where to draw the line, because speech which is ostensibly political can to differing degrees also be abusive, damaging to staff relations, bringing the company into disrepute, contrary to professional ethics, directly undermining the organization's position etc. And of course who should be given stronger-than-average protections is also a matter of some debate, and you'll usually find plenty of people arguing for government protections on the freedom of conscience for racists but not homosexuals and vice versa. Some people believe in restricting employers with more general presumptions in favour of speech than others, but assessing which ones and why is more useful than simply claiming the other side is more authoritarian, especially when those arguing for fire-at-will for any reason also consider themselves to be doing so on libertarian grounds.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do. Where do you draw this conclusion from? What government restrictions do you believe liberty minded people are calling for? >>Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections. I am not sure what this is even referencing. I have read this line a few times and I am not sure what you are trying to convey It sounds like this is a restatement of the grandparent ,you are talking about what a company should or should not do, vs what a government should or should not prohibit with the force of law. A company choosing to fire someone for X speech is vastly different than a government protecting an employee from being fired, or forcing a company to fire someone for said speech Government action is authoritarian by its very nature. I do not believe people should be fired from their jobs for their speech but at the same time I do not support government intervention in the free association of those businesses, that would have far worse consequences >And of course who should be given stronger-than-average protections is also a matter of some debate It should not be a debate at all, Equality under the law should be universal. This is one of the core problems today is we keep trying to fix past injustice with more injustice under the law The only way to break the cycle is to make every individual the exact same under the law. > Some people believe in restricting employers Yes and those people are called Authoritarians