2 ms·

> The employer/employee relationship is a special case of the producer/consumer relationship. It's not different at all. I disagree, but whatever. > Mackey ag

> The employer/employee relationship is a special case of the producer/consumer relationship. It's not different at all. I disagree, but whatever. > Mackey agrees that reform is necessary, he's just engaging in the debate on how such reform should happen. I really don't care at all what Mackey actually said, that's not the point. I'd be defending peoples right to boycott even if I agreed with every single word he said; I'm not boycotting anything. Other people have a right to spend their money however they want, it is not uncivil for them to do so. Clearly you think it is, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

philwelch 17y ago
"Other people have a right to spend their money however they want" Except employers? "I'd be defending peoples right to boycott" ...except you're not doing that, you're trying to argue that they're not being jackasses. I already conceded there's a right to be a jackass.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  > Except employers? Yes expect employers, who are generally bound by laws such as the Equal Opportunity Act which prohibits such types of discrimination. Consumers are under no such obligations. > ...except you're not doing that, you're trying to argue that they're not being jackasses. And I already said, we just aren't going to agree about this, so what's you point this time?
  - philwelch 17y ago
    The Equal Opportunity Act covers things like "...sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities..." which would also be particularly immoral reasons to boycott a business. The main reason there's no equal opportunity law against boycotts is because it would be rather unenforcable--I would certainly consider it reprehensible (though perfectly within one's legal rights) to boycott a business due to the race, sex, religion, etc. of the proprietors. Other than that, US employers have the right to either continue or terminate employment "at-will". Things that we would normally boycott companies for, like putting rootkits on people's computers or engaging in unethical business practices, are also normally acceptable things to fire employees for. And considering that the purpose of employment is for the employer to purchase the services of the employee for an indefinite period of time, how is it not a special instance of the producer/consumer relationship? What else could it be?
    - gnaritas 17y ago
      > The main reason there's no equal opportunity law against boycotts is because it would be rather unenforcable No, it's because it'd be stupid. For example, it is not the government's business if a consumer chooses to go to Jamba Juice because they like Mormons, but it most certainly is their business if Jamba Juice chooses to hire only Mormans. You can claim it's the same all you like, but the law is on my side, it is different, as it should be. A consumer is free to discriminate by whatever criteria he wishes when purchasing goods, the employer is not allowed to do so when hiring labor. They are different. Employers are in a much better position to abuse their power and when they do it has a far greater impact on the person being discriminated against; that's why it's different and that's why we regulate them.
      - apotheon 17y ago
        > No, it's because it'd be stupid. Since when has stupidity disqualified legislation from being passed into law? > A consumer is free to discriminate by whatever criteria he wishes when purchasing goods, the employer is not allowed to do so when hiring labor. They are different. Congress has been trying to alter the laws of nature with legislation for years. That doesn't mean that the law is a reliable predictor for reality, though.
        gnaritas 17y ago
        > Since when has stupidity disqualified legislation from being passed into law? I must admit, you got me there.

philwelch 17y ago

"Other people have a right to spend their money however they want" Except employers? "I'd be defending peoples right to boycott" ...except you're not doing that, you're trying to argue that they're not being jackasses. I already conceded there's a right to be a jackass.

gnaritas 17y ago
> Except employers? Yes expect employers, who are generally bound by laws such as the Equal Opportunity Act which prohibits such types of discrimination. Consumers are under no such obligations. > ...except you're not doing that, you're trying to argue that they're not being jackasses. And I already said, we just aren't going to agree about this, so what's you point this time?
- philwelch 17y ago
  The Equal Opportunity Act covers things like "...sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities..." which would also be particularly immoral reasons to boycott a business. The main reason there's no equal opportunity law against boycotts is because it would be rather unenforcable--I would certainly consider it reprehensible (though perfectly within one's legal rights) to boycott a business due to the race, sex, religion, etc. of the proprietors. Other than that, US employers have the right to either continue or terminate employment "at-will". Things that we would normally boycott companies for, like putting rootkits on people's computers or engaging in unethical business practices, are also normally acceptable things to fire employees for. And considering that the purpose of employment is for the employer to purchase the services of the employee for an indefinite period of time, how is it not a special instance of the producer/consumer relationship? What else could it be?
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    > The main reason there's no equal opportunity law against boycotts is because it would be rather unenforcable No, it's because it'd be stupid. For example, it is not the government's business if a consumer chooses to go to Jamba Juice because they like Mormons, but it most certainly is their business if Jamba Juice chooses to hire only Mormans. You can claim it's the same all you like, but the law is on my side, it is different, as it should be. A consumer is free to discriminate by whatever criteria he wishes when purchasing goods, the employer is not allowed to do so when hiring labor. They are different. Employers are in a much better position to abuse their power and when they do it has a far greater impact on the person being discriminated against; that's why it's different and that's why we regulate them.
    - apotheon 17y ago
      > No, it's because it'd be stupid. Since when has stupidity disqualified legislation from being passed into law? > A consumer is free to discriminate by whatever criteria he wishes when purchasing goods, the employer is not allowed to do so when hiring labor. They are different. Congress has been trying to alter the laws of nature with legislation for years. That doesn't mean that the law is a reliable predictor for reality, though.
      - gnaritas 17y ago
        > Since when has stupidity disqualified legislation from being passed into law? I must admit, you got me there.