7 ms·

I for one like the idea of people being able to hire whomever they like for whatever reasons they like. Let the bigots expose themselves and be punished or not

I for one like the idea of people being able to hire whomever they like for whatever reasons they like. Let the bigots expose themselves and be punished or not.

arrrg 13y ago
Are you arguing that all currently protected classes (e.g. race, religion, sex) should be abolished? That would to me be a logically coherent and non-bigoted (well, sort of, at least if the belief that the market can solve this problem and the belief that it is a problem is behind it) view of current policy. One I disagree with, but also one I can respect. However, that’s not typically what the argument is about. Those who are opposed to this are often not opposed to other (either some or all) protected classes. That, to me, seems like an untenable view. You cannot have religion and sex as a protected class but not sexual orientation. If I look at the protected classes I see one very obvious and big gap and that’s sexual orientation. It’s unquestionably incredibly bad policy to selectively exclude that (that is, if you are not a bigot).
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  >Are you arguing that all currently protected classes (e.g. race, religion, sex) should be abolished? Yes. Realize that it's a reactionary position to take, but it just seems right. If someone wants to run their business with bigotry, so be it. I won't respect them, but I'd respect their "right" to do so. I realize that there counter argument is that I've never lived in a time in which such regulation was needed, I never experienced Jim Crow, etc - and of course today Jim Crow still exists, in a way, for homosexuals. But it just seems like another case of "two wrongs make a right." Forcing others to adhere to our own moral preferences seems fundamentally and deeply flawed. There must be another way.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    > Forcing others to adhere to our own moral preferences seems fundamentally and deeply flawed. I bet you're fine forcing others to adhere to your own moral preferences re: burglary, assault, rape, and murder.
    - vinceguidry 13y ago
      That a slippery slope can be drawn, doesn't mean it actually exists.
  - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
    A "better way?" Oh my. I bet you think there is a TechCrunch style "disruption" to be made here. :) Forcing others, particularly at the barrel of a gun, as libertarians are fond of saying is what laws are. Perhaps you believe we shouldn't force people away from murdering or robbing others? If restaurants poison the food of customers, the market will work it out? This straw man is no sillier than the idea that preventing discrimination is as reprehensible as the discrimination itself.
- Jayschwa 13y ago
  Maybe we should swap out religion for sexual orientation. At least the latter is genetic (like race and sex).
  - OvidNaso 13y ago
    You'd be setting up a straw man that presumably you don't want with this caveat. There is already some evidence that sexual orientation is not fully genetic in all cases. The real position, that I take, is who cares if it's genetic. 'Genetcism' has become the modern day naturalism, and like it's fore barer gives no insight to morality.
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      Indeed. Geneticism dumbs down the discourse to a paternalistic "but they can't help it!". This is both trivializing and infantilizing. The central premise of geneticism is that these things are wrong, and the only reason we shouldn't discriminate against these people is because they can't help but be wrong. The argument then becomes that we shouldn't discriminate against people for something they can't change - the chief implication that, if it could be changed, it should. That whole line of argumentation is horseshit and concedes the most important point of all to the fundamentalists: that one's sexual orientation or gender identity can be morally reprehensible.
      - Jayschwa 13y ago
        > The central premise of geneticism is that these things are wrong. What? The central premise of geneticism is that genetics underpins the majority of human attributes and behavior. (Note: I do not personally believe this.)
        potatolicious 13y ago
        Right, but geneticism is only ever applied to the controversy re: orientation and gender identity in the context of choice. Its importance in this debate is purely to rationalize "wrong" behavior - and thereby cement the belief that it can be wrong. Notice that arguments that homosexuality is genetic is preceded by arguments that homosexuality is a choice. Instead of defeating the thoroughly shitty notion that homosexuality is inherently wrong, the argument is instead steered towards "yeah, but they can't help it". Without the choice angle, geneticism would just be a footnote. Whether or not orientation and gender identity are genetic is entirely irrelevant to the morality debate, and its presence in the debate predicates upon the assumption that, if it weren't genetic, the morality of the situation changes. This stretches beyond the sexuality debate, of course. Whenever the argument is made that we shouldn't discriminate based on things people can't change, the implicit baggage argument is that if we could change those things, we should. The correct rebuttal is "there's nothing wrong with being gay/bi/black/yellow/red" not "but they didn't choose to be gay/bi/black/yellow/red".
coralreef 13y ago
"or not"?
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Just because I want something to happen doesn't mean that it must be so.
  - 21echoes 13y ago
    why should we not use the law to prevent abuse of marginalized groups and correct for imbalances of power in the market place? what else is the law for?
    - pdonis 13y ago
      what else is the law for? To give you a level playing field on which to out-compete companies that won't hire qualified employees who happen to belong to certain groups. The proper way to correct "imbalances of power in the market place" is to use the market place to correct them--in other words, to use the market place as it is intended to be used.
      - courtf 13y ago
        use the market place to correct them A rather fragile business plan, perhaps not in 2013 USA, but certainly elsewhere in the world and historically. The libertarian argument always seems to assume rational actors playing in ideal conditions. In other words, a situation unlikely to ever arise on its own...
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Fortunately we have a government of rational actors playing in ideal conditions to legislate for us!
        dinkumthinkum 13y ago
IBM 13y ago
That's probably an idea that would resonate with lots of people with strong libertarian leanings here on HN and in Silicon Valley. However, like many libertarian positions, it's out of touch with reality. This isn't an issue that the invisible hand is going to fix.
- mistermann 13y ago
  I'm curious why you think this....if "bigoted" ideas are delusional, shouldn't the fact that we have far more integration and exposure to different sub-cultures in sufficient time eliminate all bigotry, as it will eventually become self-evident that there are in fact no differences between people? And if not, what might it be about this sub-group of people that will never ever "get it" - what's different about them that they simply can't?
  - acadien 13y ago
    Maybe its because you can't simply trust every citizen to make decisions off of what is obvious and rational. If you actually could trust every individual to make rational decisions and self organize, there would be little need for laws in the first place.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 13y ago
    Because people are not rational and may never reach that conclusion themselves? I like to think that I am rational, but I still double check myself to make sure I'm not being sexist. Occasionally minor sexist behaviour or thinking still creeps in...
  - scarmig 13y ago
    Multiple and perverse equilibria can exist--it was the economically rational thing in 1950's South (at least in some models) for people to discriminate. And even if formal discrimination might have disappeared eventually, it's a bit too easy to condemn in retrospect an entire generation of people to continued oppression just to satisfy some ideological gesture.
  - alwaysinshade 13y ago
acjohnson55 13y ago
I can't tell you how absurdly naive (or disingenuous) that sounds to people who don't happen to be white, straight males. Entire generations have lived and died while the invisible hand does its work, if in fact that work is to increase inclusion in the first place.
- MarkMc 13y ago
  I don't think alexeisadeski3 is saying that the invisible hand will resolve the problem of bigotry in the workplace. Rather, I think his/her argument is that it is imperative that people be allowed to make an offer to one group of people but not another. I disagree with such an argument but I don't see it as naive or disingenuous (although I must admit to being a white, straight male).
  - acjohnson55 13y ago
    There's perhaps a third possibility I can see besides the two I laid out earlier, but it's hardly more flattering. If the idea is to just let bigotry continue, with no expectation that natural forces will resolve it, then that sounds to me like callous disregard for systemic injustice that is both historic and ongoing. At some point, a person doesn't have to themselves have bigoted beliefs to be a part of a rotten system. Inaction is sufficient. I don't think our concern should be for preserving every last drop of agency of people who have already made it into positions of wealth and influence when we have people at major disadvantage in the workforce for personal characteristics they had little or no agency in determining. My favorite Kurt Vonnegut book, Mother Night, is about the war crimes trial of a fictional all-star propagandist for the Nazi party. As the book proceeds, you learn that he was probably actually a double agent working for the US while not sincerely trying to be such a great propagandist. Yet he was a great propagandist, and his insincere work was of great service to evil. It brings up the question of whether intention really overrides the appearance and results of your actions.
yuhong 13y ago
Personally, I do think the current anti-discrimination laws are probably fundamentally flawed.
derleth 13y ago
Every business requires public resources to maintain. The police, to guard their warehouses? The trained fire department, to reduce their insurance rates to something manageable? The roads and water and power infrastructure? They didn't build that. The amount of taxes they paid didn't fund even a hundredth of what that cost. So why should my taxes go to help fund their bigotry?
- mistermann 13y ago
  And they might ask, why should their taxes go to fund your social engineering projects and restrict their freedoms?
  - derleth 13y ago
    Because their freedoms don't extend to harming others, and never have.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  This is the ultimate "two wrongs make a right" argument.
  - daughart 13y ago
    Seems more like "two rights make a right" - companies benefit from public institutions and in return companies do not discriminate. Both of these things are beneficial to everyone. Only in libertarian ideology are either of these things considered as wronging people, and only for ideological reasons that have no foundation in the real world (nebulous appeals to abstract principles).
daughart 13y ago
If a bigot makes a product I want, I have to punish myself in the act of punishing them. If instead they are "punished" for being bigoted (or better, disallowed from acting bigoted), the punishment is no longer mutual. This is proper, since my position of antidiscrimination is not worthy of punishment.

I for one like the idea of people being able to hire whomever they like for whatever reasons they like. Let the bigots expose themselves and be punished or not.

arrrg 13y ago

Are you arguing that all currently protected classes (e.g. race, religion, sex) should be abolished? That would to me be a logically coherent and non-bigoted (well, sort of, at least if the belief that the market can solve this problem and the belief that it is a problem is behind it) view of current policy. One I disagree with, but also one I can respect. However, that’s not typically what the argument is about. Those who are opposed to this are often not opposed to other (either some or all) protected classes. That, to me, seems like an untenable view. You cannot have religion and sex as a protected class but not sexual orientation. If I look at the protected classes I see one very obvious and big gap and that’s sexual orientation. It’s unquestionably incredibly bad policy to selectively exclude that (that is, if you are not a bigot).

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
>Are you arguing that all currently protected classes (e.g. race, religion, sex) should be abolished? Yes. Realize that it's a reactionary position to take, but it just seems right. If someone wants to run their business with bigotry, so be it. I won't respect them, but I'd respect their "right" to do so. I realize that there counter argument is that I've never lived in a time in which such regulation was needed, I never experienced Jim Crow, etc - and of course today Jim Crow still exists, in a way, for homosexuals. But it just seems like another case of "two wrongs make a right." Forcing others to adhere to our own moral preferences seems fundamentally and deeply flawed. There must be another way.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  > Forcing others to adhere to our own moral preferences seems fundamentally and deeply flawed. I bet you're fine forcing others to adhere to your own moral preferences re: burglary, assault, rape, and murder.
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    That a slippery slope can be drawn, doesn't mean it actually exists.
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  A "better way?" Oh my. I bet you think there is a TechCrunch style "disruption" to be made here. :) Forcing others, particularly at the barrel of a gun, as libertarians are fond of saying is what laws are. Perhaps you believe we shouldn't force people away from murdering or robbing others? If restaurants poison the food of customers, the market will work it out? This straw man is no sillier than the idea that preventing discrimination is as reprehensible as the discrimination itself.
Jayschwa 13y ago
Maybe we should swap out religion for sexual orientation. At least the latter is genetic (like race and sex).
- OvidNaso 13y ago
  You'd be setting up a straw man that presumably you don't want with this caveat. There is already some evidence that sexual orientation is not fully genetic in all cases. The real position, that I take, is who cares if it's genetic. 'Genetcism' has become the modern day naturalism, and like it's fore barer gives no insight to morality.
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    Indeed. Geneticism dumbs down the discourse to a paternalistic "but they can't help it!". This is both trivializing and infantilizing. The central premise of geneticism is that these things are wrong, and the only reason we shouldn't discriminate against these people is because they can't help but be wrong. The argument then becomes that we shouldn't discriminate against people for something they can't change - the chief implication that, if it could be changed, it should. That whole line of argumentation is horseshit and concedes the most important point of all to the fundamentalists: that one's sexual orientation or gender identity can be morally reprehensible.
    - Jayschwa 13y ago
      > The central premise of geneticism is that these things are wrong. What? The central premise of geneticism is that genetics underpins the majority of human attributes and behavior. (Note: I do not personally believe this.)
      - potatolicious 13y ago
        Right, but geneticism is only ever applied to the controversy re: orientation and gender identity in the context of choice. Its importance in this debate is purely to rationalize "wrong" behavior - and thereby cement the belief that it can be wrong. Notice that arguments that homosexuality is genetic is preceded by arguments that homosexuality is a choice. Instead of defeating the thoroughly shitty notion that homosexuality is inherently wrong, the argument is instead steered towards "yeah, but they can't help it". Without the choice angle, geneticism would just be a footnote. Whether or not orientation and gender identity are genetic is entirely irrelevant to the morality debate, and its presence in the debate predicates upon the assumption that, if it weren't genetic, the morality of the situation changes. This stretches beyond the sexuality debate, of course. Whenever the argument is made that we shouldn't discriminate based on things people can't change, the implicit baggage argument is that if we could change those things, we should. The correct rebuttal is "there's nothing wrong with being gay/bi/black/yellow/red" not "but they didn't choose to be gay/bi/black/yellow/red".

coralreef 13y ago

"or not"?

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Just because I want something to happen doesn't mean that it must be so.
- 21echoes 13y ago
  why should we not use the law to prevent abuse of marginalized groups and correct for imbalances of power in the market place? what else is the law for?
  - pdonis 13y ago
    what else is the law for? To give you a level playing field on which to out-compete companies that won't hire qualified employees who happen to belong to certain groups. The proper way to correct "imbalances of power in the market place" is to use the market place to correct them--in other words, to use the market place as it is intended to be used.
    - courtf 13y ago
      use the market place to correct them A rather fragile business plan, perhaps not in 2013 USA, but certainly elsewhere in the world and historically. The libertarian argument always seems to assume rational actors playing in ideal conditions. In other words, a situation unlikely to ever arise on its own...
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Fortunately we have a government of rational actors playing in ideal conditions to legislate for us!
        dinkumthinkum 13y ago

IBM 13y ago

That's probably an idea that would resonate with lots of people with strong libertarian leanings here on HN and in Silicon Valley. However, like many libertarian positions, it's out of touch with reality. This isn't an issue that the invisible hand is going to fix.

mistermann 13y ago
I'm curious why you think this....if "bigoted" ideas are delusional, shouldn't the fact that we have far more integration and exposure to different sub-cultures in sufficient time eliminate all bigotry, as it will eventually become self-evident that there are in fact no differences between people? And if not, what might it be about this sub-group of people that will never ever "get it" - what's different about them that they simply can't?
- acadien 13y ago
  Maybe its because you can't simply trust every citizen to make decisions off of what is obvious and rational. If you actually could trust every individual to make rational decisions and self organize, there would be little need for laws in the first place.
- 2muchcoffeeman 13y ago
  Because people are not rational and may never reach that conclusion themselves? I like to think that I am rational, but I still double check myself to make sure I'm not being sexist. Occasionally minor sexist behaviour or thinking still creeps in...
- scarmig 13y ago
  Multiple and perverse equilibria can exist--it was the economically rational thing in 1950's South (at least in some models) for people to discriminate. And even if formal discrimination might have disappeared eventually, it's a bit too easy to condemn in retrospect an entire generation of people to continued oppression just to satisfy some ideological gesture.
- alwaysinshade 13y ago

acjohnson55 13y ago

I can't tell you how absurdly naive (or disingenuous) that sounds to people who don't happen to be white, straight males. Entire generations have lived and died while the invisible hand does its work, if in fact that work is to increase inclusion in the first place.

MarkMc 13y ago
I don't think alexeisadeski3 is saying that the invisible hand will resolve the problem of bigotry in the workplace. Rather, I think his/her argument is that it is imperative that people be allowed to make an offer to one group of people but not another. I disagree with such an argument but I don't see it as naive or disingenuous (although I must admit to being a white, straight male).
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  There's perhaps a third possibility I can see besides the two I laid out earlier, but it's hardly more flattering. If the idea is to just let bigotry continue, with no expectation that natural forces will resolve it, then that sounds to me like callous disregard for systemic injustice that is both historic and ongoing. At some point, a person doesn't have to themselves have bigoted beliefs to be a part of a rotten system. Inaction is sufficient. I don't think our concern should be for preserving every last drop of agency of people who have already made it into positions of wealth and influence when we have people at major disadvantage in the workforce for personal characteristics they had little or no agency in determining. My favorite Kurt Vonnegut book, Mother Night, is about the war crimes trial of a fictional all-star propagandist for the Nazi party. As the book proceeds, you learn that he was probably actually a double agent working for the US while not sincerely trying to be such a great propagandist. Yet he was a great propagandist, and his insincere work was of great service to evil. It brings up the question of whether intention really overrides the appearance and results of your actions.

yuhong 13y ago

Personally, I do think the current anti-discrimination laws are probably fundamentally flawed.

derleth 13y ago

Every business requires public resources to maintain. The police, to guard their warehouses? The trained fire department, to reduce their insurance rates to something manageable? The roads and water and power infrastructure? They didn't build that. The amount of taxes they paid didn't fund even a hundredth of what that cost. So why should my taxes go to help fund their bigotry?

mistermann 13y ago
And they might ask, why should their taxes go to fund your social engineering projects and restrict their freedoms?
- derleth 13y ago
  Because their freedoms don't extend to harming others, and never have.
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
This is the ultimate "two wrongs make a right" argument.
- daughart 13y ago
  Seems more like "two rights make a right" - companies benefit from public institutions and in return companies do not discriminate. Both of these things are beneficial to everyone. Only in libertarian ideology are either of these things considered as wronging people, and only for ideological reasons that have no foundation in the real world (nebulous appeals to abstract principles).

daughart 13y ago

If a bigot makes a product I want, I have to punish myself in the act of punishing them. If instead they are "punished" for being bigoted (or better, disallowed from acting bigoted), the punishment is no longer mutual. This is proper, since my position of antidiscrimination is not worthy of punishment.