Positive Discrimination
- Thread starter rewind
- Start date
"Positive discrimination" is an Orwellian contradiction in terms on the order of "consensual rape" or "mandatory volunteer". Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who is on the giving or receiving end. It is really that simple, regardless of the intellectual contortions one would put himself through to make it more complicated by couching it in seemingly-complex terms of social "science". Now, in terms of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of "discriminating", my feeling is that the law should "discriminate" against no one, but individuals should be free to "discriminate" against or among anyone they like. If you're white and you don't like black people, you shouldn't have to hire them with your own private money. If you're black and you don't like white people, you shouldn't have to hire them with your own private money. Apply the same formula to any races or ethnicities or sexual orientations or genders or hair colors or body types or any other dimension of comparison you like. Of course, this a typical libertarian position, and I know you British lot aren't exactly the strongest champions of libertarianism.
In regard to morality, animals lack the intellectual capacity to abstractly recognize such a concept. So if animals are "moral", it is purely unintentional. And what the hell does that have to do with anything anyway?
In regard to morality, animals lack the intellectual capacity to abstractly recognize such a concept. So if animals are "moral", it is purely unintentional. And what the hell does that have to do with anything anyway?
Great. So if the law should not protect individuals from being discriminated against, what else should we leave to hicks like Joshie to decide? Unfortunately, some individuals are not qualified to make some decisions for themselves. Their lack of sound judgement means they have to be cradled at the teat of the state and others have to be protected from their idiocy via the law. Not employing people based on colour, is case in point.
Herein is the principle and irreconcilable difference between social liberalism and libertarianism: positive versus negative rights. I believe a "hick" like Joshie should be allowed to do whatever he pleases with his own property, so long as it does not prevent me from doing the same. Requiring Joshie by force of government to use his property (his money) to hire someone he doesn't want to, for any reason, is an infringement of his right to his property the exact same as if you required Joshie by force of government to use his property (his money) to purchase any other good or service that he doesn't want. Forcing Joshie to use his resources to hire a short person if he doesn't like short people, a black person if he doesn't like black people, or a woman if he doesn't like women is no different from an individual rights basis than forcing him to use his resources to purchase a muffin he doesn't want instead of the doughnut that he does, or a bike he doesn't want instead of a car that he does, or a beer he doesn't want instead of a soda that he does. You would rather subject yourself to the loss of your property rights than allow Joshie the unfettered right to his. I'd rather let Joshie make his choices, and I mine.
It's interesting that you pick inanimate objects as comparatives to make a point about the rights of living people. You see if everyone picks the chocolate muffin and nobody ever picks the blueberry muffins, that's fine, the blueberry muffins get thrown away/replaced with chocolate muffins. If you apply the same to actual living people however, you would end up with a marginalised underclass. Everyone then ends up worse off, because crime increases and so on. Your argument is flawed because of this basis.
I am of the opinion that no form of discrimination is productive for anyone involved in the long-term. Allowing people to freely discriminate against others for no valid, lawful reason is even less productive - for all.
I am of the opinion that no form of discrimination is productive for anyone involved in the long-term. Allowing people to freely discriminate against others for no valid, lawful reason is even less productive - for all.
From an individual property rights standpoint, there is no difference between forcing someone to spend money on one good or another. It's a valid point of comparison because labor is a good the same way that a muffin or a television or a masseuse or a t-shirt is - you pay a price in goods in exchange for some perceived utility. Whether discrimination is bad or fair or productive or counter-productive or efficient or inefficient is immaterial to whether it should be legal or illegal *from a private hiring perspective*. A lot of the things I'm allowed to do with my money are not good, fair, productive, or efficient, but that doesn't mean the government is entitled to tell me that I can or cannot purchase them with my own money.
I have a sexual preference for women and a discriminatory preference against red-heads. It makes no more sense for the government to tell me that I have to date men and red heads than it does for the government to tell me who I can or cannot hire. Unless and until the government takes on the tangible risk and responsibility for my employees, they should not have a place in my hiring decisions.
How about a different perspective: I doubt you would have objections to a women's lingerie shop discriminating against men in its hiring practices or a Chinese restaurant discriminating against white people or Hispanics in its hiring practices. Why is it okay for one business owner to discriminate against someone based on one set of physical attributes, but not okay for another to discriminate against someone because of a different set of physical attributes?
By the by, a good explanation of the libertarian/classical liberal concept of rights can be found here: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/whatisclassicalliberalism.pdf
I have a sexual preference for women and a discriminatory preference against red-heads. It makes no more sense for the government to tell me that I have to date men and red heads than it does for the government to tell me who I can or cannot hire. Unless and until the government takes on the tangible risk and responsibility for my employees, they should not have a place in my hiring decisions.
How about a different perspective: I doubt you would have objections to a women's lingerie shop discriminating against men in its hiring practices or a Chinese restaurant discriminating against white people or Hispanics in its hiring practices. Why is it okay for one business owner to discriminate against someone based on one set of physical attributes, but not okay for another to discriminate against someone because of a different set of physical attributes?
By the by, a good explanation of the libertarian/classical liberal concept of rights can be found here: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/whatisclassicalliberalism.pdf
Actually no. Helping the weak "survive" is actually counter-evolutionary. They must all DIE!!! DIE I TELL YOU!!!
Where did I put those pills?
This is pretty much why we could argue about this in circles forever. Things are made legal or illegal for some of the very reasons you stipulate as immaterial. You yourself admit that discriminatory decisions can be harmful to people, yet in contradiction, expect them to remain legal.
Your redhead example is out of context because there is no buying decision involved and therefore no direct, economic derivatives. The government DO in fact take on risk and responsibility for employees because they will have to create stimulus, via investment/injections, if a big enough group is pushed out of employment.
This cannot be achieved. You are asking the law to ignore the act of discrimination by individuals. However, if the law is deliberately made to ignore discrimination then it becomes party to the act itself and thus discriminatory. You cannot achieve both. By ignoring gay marriage, for example, the law discriminates - it gives legal right for group A to trample on group B by openly failing to protect group B via proportionate rights.
Discrimination does not actually exist in your example. If the set of physical attributes are directly related to the function of the job then there might be a reasonable justification for only employing people with those attributes (in the UK at least). In different circumstances, different physical attributes can be genuine occupational qualifications; It is reasonable to only employ a female toilet attendant for a women's toilet. In such a case, discrimination is not taking place - there is only the qualified and unqualified for the owner to choose between. Obviously, because of the presence of anti-discrimination law, if people feel that there is discrimination present in the employment decision then they are given the right to challenge it - which goes back to my comment above.
I got the popcorn out for this one 
It's a doozie between Doc and Mat ..... wooo hooo............my heart goes with Doc but then Mat makes my head click in .... I am being torn asunder here guys but please, please continue ... it's a cracking good read for sure !!!!!!
It's a doozie between Doc and Mat ..... wooo hooo............my heart goes with Doc but then Mat makes my head click in .... I am being torn asunder here guys but please, please continue ... it's a cracking good read for sure !!!!!!