5 ms·

How far should this go? Should banks refuse to service employees? Grocery stores? Gas stations? They are private businesses, they have no reason to tolerate

by influx 6y ago

How far should this go? Should banks refuse to service employees? Grocery stores? Gas stations? They are private businesses, they have no reason to tolerate people who are thinking the wrong way.

trianglem 6y ago
Yes fascists should be refused by everyone. It’s in everyone’s interests to have more customers so this works itself out through game theory.
- chipsa 6y ago
  Let's take away everything from fascists. Then they have nothing left to lose.
  - trianglem 6y ago
    Yes. Then they lash out and then there is a reckoning. This is ideal.
    - krapp 6y ago
      They're fascists, they're planning to lash out anyway. At least let's maybe make things slightly more difficult for them. Or even slightly less comfortable.
  - Traster 6y ago
    Ok. I mean... they had the presidncy and apparently that wasn't enough. One thing you have to reckon with is the fact that the people leading this movement have everything and are still trying to overthrow the government. There is barely a person on earth who is materially more comfortable than DT. It didn't stop him doing this. So I don't really see why the idea of fascists having nothing would be more scary than well resourced fascists. Donald Trump with no resources is 'old man yells at cloud' rather than '5 dead at the capitol'.
- My7thAccount 6y ago
  Great Idea! Until someone calls you a Fascist.
- j8hn 6y ago
  Who decides who are the fascists? A community activist in Seattle is organizing against Antifa calling them terrorists for causing violence and hijacking social justice issues such as Black Lives Matter and the homeless issue. Should that group also be refused by everyone, or does it depend on political ideology? Source: https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345184414016278528 https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345184414016278528 https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345192831602679809 https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345192831602679809
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > Who decides who are the fascists? Well, let’s start with: the ones who took over the US Capitol building. And then later we can look at the results, decide if that was enough or not, and act accordingly.
    - j8hn 6y ago
      That's a strange framework to decide who the fascists are.
      - mcphage 6y ago
        That’s what’s great about it—you don’t need a framework at all. You can look at your surroundings and decide what is most appropriate right now.
        j8hn 6y ago
        So when Veronica Beach talks about Antifa terrorizing parts of Seattle, are they fascists?
        mcphage 6y ago
        If they haven’t tried taking over the government yet, I’d say, wait.
        trianglem 6y ago
oldgradstudent 6y ago
In what sense are big banks private businesses? Banks, especially the big ones, will always be bailed out in a crisis. We've just had a demonstration about a decade ago.
- simonh 6y ago
  Everyone gets bailouts at some level, hence welfare, stimulus cheques, Medicare and Medicaid in the US. More so over here (Brit). Financial services get very heavily regulated which imposes huge costs, so it is arguable that imposes a certain level of obligation on government. I think that’s a reasonable case, though I’m not entirely happy with the way it’s been handled in practice. It’s not a perfect world.
simonh 6y ago
In general I think we all should be free to associate or do business with whoever we choose. That should be the default position. There may have to be some exceptions where available options are limited for crucial services. I’m trying to avoid using the word Monopoly because it’s bandied about so much inappropriately, but some services are so essential and providers are so limited that we should probably expect them to be provided to anyone making a legal request for access. Those are specific circumstances though and I don’t think any of these - law firms, internet hosting, etc reach that threshold.
- DenisM 6y ago
  Legal counsel is not essential?
  - kthejoker2 6y ago
    Legal counsel != a specific law firm. AWS is one service. YouTube is one service. Twitter is one service. Yes, they are big services - in most cases, the biggest service among their competitors. They have stakeholders and financial incentives to not be associated with - or worse, seen as condoning - deeply unpopular or controversial political positions. Why is it so easy to understand when it's a baker refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding or a Christian-owned company refusing to provide birth control for their employees?
throwaway189262 6y ago
I don't think the average person is at risk of starting riots with white supremacists. Parler should be treated the same way as Al Queda. Totally radioactive
geofft 6y ago
There's two questions which we should distinguish: 1. Should there be a bright-line rule - either enforced by government or strong social pressure - about whether people must engage in business with other people, and on what grounds they may discriminate? 2. Should there be a social norm that businesses should try to serve all customers where possible, for the good of customers? Our society generally answers 1 with that you must refrain from discriminating on the grounds of deep personal characteristics and no otherwise. You cannot throw someone out of your bar for being black. You can throw them out for being drunk and picking fights. You cannot refuse to hire an employee who needs to take a few breaks a day to pray. You can refuse to hire an employee who needs to take a few breaks a day to hire Fiverrs to do their job for them. You cannot refuse to offer credit cards to ethnic North Koreans living in America. You can (and must!) refuse to offer credit cards to North Korean citizens. This is a sensible position, because it balances the general right to freedom of association / the government not micromanaging your business transactions with the more specific individual rights to participate in society. I cannot change my race, and (we have decided) it's unreasonable to expect me to change my religion. I can (we have decided) change my competence, and I can certainly change whether I start bar fights. We could decide otherwise, but I think the existing position has a lot of merit. Number 2 is a more interesting question, but I think the norm of our society is that it should be answered by the free market. We expect that businesses want to serve as many customers as possible anyway because it's the most profitable. Should they decide that they don't want to serve certain customers, it's generally not the place of either the government or strong social norms to say, we wish to override your decision-making process and tell you what to do (apart from the bright-line rule in question 1). Part of the freedom of a free market is that actors are free to decide what to do on their own, including to make mistakes, and no central planning committee tells them what is best for society. We expect this approach will lead to fewer mistakes and a better society. Again, I think this position has a lot of merit, and we should figure out why we want to change it.

by influx 6y ago

How far should this go? Should banks refuse to service employees? Grocery stores? Gas stations? They are private businesses, they have no reason to tolerate people who are thinking the wrong way.

trianglem 6y ago

Yes fascists should be refused by everyone. It’s in everyone’s interests to have more customers so this works itself out through game theory.

chipsa 6y ago
Let's take away everything from fascists. Then they have nothing left to lose.
- trianglem 6y ago
  Yes. Then they lash out and then there is a reckoning. This is ideal.
  - krapp 6y ago
    They're fascists, they're planning to lash out anyway. At least let's maybe make things slightly more difficult for them. Or even slightly less comfortable.
- Traster 6y ago
  Ok. I mean... they had the presidncy and apparently that wasn't enough. One thing you have to reckon with is the fact that the people leading this movement have everything and are still trying to overthrow the government. There is barely a person on earth who is materially more comfortable than DT. It didn't stop him doing this. So I don't really see why the idea of fascists having nothing would be more scary than well resourced fascists. Donald Trump with no resources is 'old man yells at cloud' rather than '5 dead at the capitol'.
My7thAccount 6y ago
Great Idea! Until someone calls you a Fascist.
j8hn 6y ago
Who decides who are the fascists? A community activist in Seattle is organizing against Antifa calling them terrorists for causing violence and hijacking social justice issues such as Black Lives Matter and the homeless issue. Should that group also be refused by everyone, or does it depend on political ideology? Source: https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345184414016278528 https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345184414016278528 https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345192831602679809 https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345192831602679809
- mcphage 6y ago
  > Who decides who are the fascists? Well, let’s start with: the ones who took over the US Capitol building. And then later we can look at the results, decide if that was enough or not, and act accordingly.
  - j8hn 6y ago
    That's a strange framework to decide who the fascists are.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      That’s what’s great about it—you don’t need a framework at all. You can look at your surroundings and decide what is most appropriate right now.
      - j8hn 6y ago
        So when Veronica Beach talks about Antifa terrorizing parts of Seattle, are they fascists?
        mcphage 6y ago
        If they haven’t tried taking over the government yet, I’d say, wait.
        trianglem 6y ago

oldgradstudent 6y ago

In what sense are big banks private businesses? Banks, especially the big ones, will always be bailed out in a crisis. We've just had a demonstration about a decade ago.

simonh 6y ago
Everyone gets bailouts at some level, hence welfare, stimulus cheques, Medicare and Medicaid in the US. More so over here (Brit). Financial services get very heavily regulated which imposes huge costs, so it is arguable that imposes a certain level of obligation on government. I think that’s a reasonable case, though I’m not entirely happy with the way it’s been handled in practice. It’s not a perfect world.

simonh 6y ago

In general I think we all should be free to associate or do business with whoever we choose. That should be the default position. There may have to be some exceptions where available options are limited for crucial services. I’m trying to avoid using the word Monopoly because it’s bandied about so much inappropriately, but some services are so essential and providers are so limited that we should probably expect them to be provided to anyone making a legal request for access. Those are specific circumstances though and I don’t think any of these - law firms, internet hosting, etc reach that threshold.

DenisM 6y ago
Legal counsel is not essential?
- kthejoker2 6y ago
  Legal counsel != a specific law firm. AWS is one service. YouTube is one service. Twitter is one service. Yes, they are big services - in most cases, the biggest service among their competitors. They have stakeholders and financial incentives to not be associated with - or worse, seen as condoning - deeply unpopular or controversial political positions. Why is it so easy to understand when it's a baker refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding or a Christian-owned company refusing to provide birth control for their employees?

throwaway189262 6y ago

I don't think the average person is at risk of starting riots with white supremacists. Parler should be treated the same way as Al Queda. Totally radioactive

geofft 6y ago

There's two questions which we should distinguish: 1. Should there be a bright-line rule - either enforced by government or strong social pressure - about whether people must engage in business with other people, and on what grounds they may discriminate? 2. Should there be a social norm that businesses should try to serve all customers where possible, for the good of customers? Our society generally answers 1 with that you must refrain from discriminating on the grounds of deep personal characteristics and no otherwise. You cannot throw someone out of your bar for being black. You can throw them out for being drunk and picking fights. You cannot refuse to hire an employee who needs to take a few breaks a day to pray. You can refuse to hire an employee who needs to take a few breaks a day to hire Fiverrs to do their job for them. You cannot refuse to offer credit cards to ethnic North Koreans living in America. You can (and must!) refuse to offer credit cards to North Korean citizens. This is a sensible position, because it balances the general right to freedom of association / the government not micromanaging your business transactions with the more specific individual rights to participate in society. I cannot change my race, and (we have decided) it's unreasonable to expect me to change my religion. I can (we have decided) change my competence, and I can certainly change whether I start bar fights. We could decide otherwise, but I think the existing position has a lot of merit. Number 2 is a more interesting question, but I think the norm of our society is that it should be answered by the free market. We expect that businesses want to serve as many customers as possible anyway because it's the most profitable. Should they decide that they don't want to serve certain customers, it's generally not the place of either the government or strong social norms to say, we wish to override your decision-making process and tell you what to do (apart from the bright-line rule in question 1). Part of the freedom of a free market is that actors are free to decide what to do on their own, including to make mistakes, and no central planning committee tells them what is best for society. We expect this approach will lead to fewer mistakes and a better society. Again, I think this position has a lot of merit, and we should figure out why we want to change it.