I assume Steven used Albanians to avoid a black vs. white debate, as Mark Perry alluded to his mistake in doing so. But I don't think we can talk about Albanians without talking about African-Americans, because the two can not be interchangeably substituted. On the whole, I am against any policy or system that would factor in the color of a person's skin, BUT an exception should be made, for a period of time, for any group that was systematically marginalized through government and government-sponsored policies. That is what makes Albanians and blacks different, at least in America.Bryan (paraphrasing me!) starts with the rather strong intuition that it’s okay for tenants and workers to discriminate. If you don’t want to live in an Albanian-owned building or an work for an Albanian employer, that’s your right (no matter how strongly we might strongly disapprove of your attitude). By analogy, then, it might seem that landlords and employers should have the same right to discriminate.
Now clearly the situtation is not that simple; landlords and employers are not the same as tenants and employees. But the question is: Are they not the same in any way that is morally relevant? The most frequently cited difference (in my experience) is that landlords and employers tend to have more market power than tenants and workers. Putting aside the question of whether that’s true, it can’t possibly be a full justification for treating landords and employers differently, and here’s why: There are plenty of instances where we don’t think that market power takes away your right to discriminate. Extremely attractive people have a lot of power in the dating market, but I think it’s safe to say that almost nobody thinks the most beautiful among us should be forced to date Albanians, or to prove that they choose their partners according to some objective criterion other than national origin.
So if you think it’s okay for tenants to discriminate but not landlords, you’ve got to face the question: What is the ethically relevant distinction here? It’s clearly not market power, so what, if anything, is it?
I do not deny that there might be a good answer to that question, but I must admit I can’t imagine what it would be.
Civil rights "reparations" policies are important and have been monumental in changing American society in the last 50 years with respect to its treatment of blacks. However, I do feel like a time limit on government affirmative action policies is important, as I believe there is a tipping point past which (in almost every case) continued government action begins to do more harm than good. There is a fine line between help and pity, as there is a fine line between support and condescension, and the last thing we should be doing is institutionalizing any group as perpetually in need of assistance. I am not smart enough to know exactly when, but we should be at least trying to understand how close we may be to reaching the point of diminishing returns.
Now, as far as Albanians and all others are concerned, Landsburg has a point, in that we can not legislate discrimination out of human nature, and attempts to do so are usually one-sided and without moral/philosophical consistency.
We discriminate every day in the foods we eat, the clothes we wear, the music we listen to, the friends we keep, and the places we live/work/congregate. Discrimination is the primary function by which we form an identity and form communities with others who share in our discrimination. Racial discrimination is particularly crude and offensive, I agree, but in an open society with a blind government, those that discriminate poorly will usually suffer their just rewards.
31 comments:
In the field of psychology, "discrimination" is actually used as a positive term, not a pejorative term.
"BUT an exception should be made, for a period of time, for any group that was systematically marginalized through government and government-sponsored policies."
(Who decides the exceptions and the amount of time for the exception?)
"Civil rights "reparations" policies are important and have been monumental in changing American society in the last 50 years with respect to its treatment of blacks"
(This very statement/act is what is known as reverse discrimination. You are in favor of reparations toward a particular group of people for having the physical characteristics that is shared among the individual members of that group for which they were first discriminated. In essence, a group of people were discriminated against for sharing a physical characteristic--and now you are in favor of discriminating FOR a different group of people who just happen to have the same physical characteristic. Be careful, that may get you the famous "R" word; you definitely do not want that "Scarlett Letter" branded on you.)
Here is a suggestion, if I may: Individual Rights for all. No special treatments.
"Who decides the exceptions and the amount of time for the exception?"
Those in charge of policy, of course. As to the amount of time, it will probably be one of those "we'll know it when we see it" situations, although I concede that even once we get there (and in some areas we may already be there) politicians are generally loathe to end any programs that curry instant favor with voters. As Ludacris says, there is an important difference between giving a hand up and a hand out, and we need to be smarter about recognizing the difference.
"This very statement/act is what is known as reverse discrimination"
I figured someone would bring up reverse discrimination. Economically, at the margins of society, there are indeed examples and risks of reverse discrimination. Yet, reverse discrimination tends to impede, not completely end or limit a person's opportunities. A white person may not get into their first choice of school or job, but they are very rarely if ever able to find another suitable school or job for which they are qualified and will benefit from. This is evidenced on the larger societal level as well. Fifty years after so-called "reverse discrimination" policies, white people seem to be doing just find when compared to their black counterparts. The tables most certainly have not been completely reversed, which is what use of "reverse discrimination" would imply. If the "R" word is realist, then I could do worse, if you imply me to be racist, I'm afraid your barking up the wrong tree.
"Individual Rights for all. No special treatments."
That is the goal, I completely agree. I would love to see the repeal of affirmative action, fair housing, equal employment opportunity, and hate crimes legislation, among many others. But the fact is that before these laws, there were Jim Crow segregation laws, restrictions as to where blacks could live, where they could work, and unequal protection in courts. And this was in the 40's, 50's, and 60's - we don't even have to go back to previous generations to discuss suffrage, slavery, or 3:5 ratios. So when individual rights have been violated through institutionalized policy, I do see justice in institutionalized reparations, AGAIN, only until that time where reparations turn into unnecessary crutches and entitlements.
As an initial point, I'd just like to say there's only two things I hate in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
I'd also like to throw out a hypothetical for consideration: Assume a group of people were forcibly removed from their homes in a distant land, loaded onto ships and transported like chattel to a port city on a different continent and then sold into slavery. For 250 years, they and their direct descendants were bought, sold and traded as property and labored as slaves without any compensation or any rights. Once the practice of slavery was abolished, they lived under state-endorsed apartheid for another 100 years - where it was impossible to vote, and nearly impossible to access public resources including the educational and economic opportunities freely available to the descendants of the slave owners.
Query: Given that set of facts, what "reparation" would remedy the inequities and injustices suffered by the oppressed and also attempt to set the oppressed on equal footing with the the oppressor?
Small correction in the Query: "oppressed" should include "descendants of the oppressed" and "oppressor" should include "descendants of the oppressor".
If you truly believe in individual rights for all, then you cannot have a group of individuals who have more rights than others. You cannot have "gay rights" or "black rights" or "animal rights." By doing so, you are creating another level of citizenship, one that precludes all others who do not fit the profile. One cannot fight racism with reverse racism. The common denominator in both instances is racism.
As for the group that decides the policy and for how long, you have just given a group (politicians) who can dictate who gets more rights than others. You just made this particular group your "King."
The only reparations needed is: Full Individual Rights for all. No one has the right to infringe upon mine, nor I theirs. All laws should reflect this idea. No special groups that have more rights; no special groups that dictate who has more rights than others; no "King" for anyone, simply I have the right to my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of my own happiness. This doesn't mean that someone needs to give me a job, nor does someone need to give me money, nor does someone need to give me a home. It means that I have the right to take the proper actions to pursue such things like a job, a consensual business trade, or a home.
I guess we disagree. Strange, huh?
Professor, we actually agree in the abstract, I just resist the urge to allow blanket statements to cover every possible scenario. I guess I am tormented by a world full of nuance and make exceptions.
Dr. RosenRosen, obviously full reparations can't be made to the original victims, and as to following generations, the best that we can do is work to level the playing field in terms of opportunity. Once our society has a sense of a level playing field, there is no reason for present generations on either side to continue living with white guilt / black oppression complex. What say you?
"the best that we can do is work to level the playing field in terms of opportunity"
-Give me your top three suggestions as to how you would "level the playing field in terms of opportunity."
I would say that as long as we have the scourge of slavery in our history, we should retain our guilt or otherwise convince ourselves that things weren't all that bad. Some times we can't out run the evil in our pasts, that goes for individuals and for nations, particularly when it evidences a pattern of behavior (see also Native American policy circa 1800-present).
Professor, I don't want to insert myself in a discussion between you and Justus, but I would observe that the fierce libertarianism you advocate appears to me to be anarchy. Have I misunderstood you?
RosenRosen,
Yes, you have misunderstood me. I do not promote anarchy (pure evil) nor do I promote libertarianism (wannabe capitalists with wild and offensive ideas), I promote full laissez-faire capitalism based on a government whose sole purpose is to protect the individual rights of its citizens--that's it. I have discussed this matter in previous posts.
Please insert. Insert all you want. Insertion is good. LOL
Professor, I would agree with you that we should have equal rights for all. But what should we do in the case where one group does not have equal rights? It is easy to say that we should give them equal rights without infringing on the rights of others. That's what should happen, but that's not what does happen. You know as well as I do (or perhaps you disagree) that politicians from any party in America are ill equipped to provide equality to all. Since we are in a system that fights against providing equal rights, how do we fix it? I don't believe your premise "full individual rights for all", although good, is possible. Is there an example or a country that has equal rights for all, and not "more rights for the privileged"? If it is not possible, then it is perhaps not useful.
I am hereby posting, so that I may receive email notification if there are additional posts.
I would also like to honor all ACC teams that went down in fiery defeat this weekend. Your ineptitude is unparalleled.
word verification: trofo
Anonymous,
The plan is so simple, it will drive you crazy. LOL
Repeal all laws that give special rights to any single group, whether it be a racial group, age group, gender group, sexual orientation group, economic group, business enterprise, or what have you. No special treatment for anyone. Base all remaining laws on the individual's right to life, property, liberty, and the pursuit of your own happiness.
No other country has ever practiced this ideal. Why? Irrationality. It is simply irrational, and therefore evil, not to practice such.
The only way that a group does not have the same rights that another group has is through an institution so powerful that it has the right to INITIATE force against any group it wishes: the government. For example, in Florida, one is not allowed to adopt a child if one is gay. Why? Because the government intervenes in the liberty and pursuit of happiness of a gay couple or person who wishes to raise a child of his/her own. They have initiated force onto another group, keeping them from pursuing their goals, which in essence do not violate the rights of others. Another example is a gay couple does not have the right to marry a person of the same sex. Why? Because the government intervenes in the pursuit of one's happiness to have all his/her property and rights given to another person he/she loves. Furthermore, the government gives a pay-out (paid by citizens through force, not choice) to all married couples so that they can claim more money back on their income taxes (another evil form of government intervention).
"Politicians are ill equipped"--well then let's equip them well. Strip them of their economic power. Watch most of them fall one by one. The government needs to be reduced by about 90%, just not all in one day. It would take decades to do this.
(The following excerpt is by Ms. Ayn Rand in her "Virtue of Selfishness.")
"Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted."
Go to this site to learn a little more about a proper government:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html
Question for those devout Christians on this blog: Do you support full individual rights for each citizen so that a gay couple may marry and/or adopt a child? Tell me the truth. But be prepared to take it.
Prof,
I think we are getting off topic, but you can read my position on gay marriage (and it can be interpreted broadly for all gay rights) in my previous post on the subject
Prof,
I think we are getting off topic, but you can read my position on gay marriage (and it can be interpreted broadly for all gay rights) in my previous post on the subject
I agree the plan is simple, and I agree that it is the best solution, but I don't think the plan is feasible.
I'm not arguing the validity of the plan, I'm arguing the practicality. You say decades to change, I say centuries (or never), especially since you state every country that has ever existed practices the "evil of irrationality". (quotes not direct)
As to full individual rights and the pursuit of one's happiness, what happens when my happiness is in conflict with your happiness? Is it just survival of the fittest? Or what if the pursuit of one's happiness is irrational?
Perhaps this is why we have never seen a country institute full individual rights. The people with the most resources/power selfishly pursue their own happiness which is often at the expense of their constituents.
Let them eat cake!
Anonymous,
1. When one's happiness constitutes violating the rights of another person, then the government acts as the enforcer who initiates the force required to protect the latter person's individual right. Locally, we call them police officers. Nationally, we call them the armed forces. Judicially, we call them lawyers and judges. I am not sure how is it that you are missing this very elementary point.
2. You say it is not practical. OK, then let this mixed economy be your solution. Let's see how far that gets you. Uh, has anyone noticed there is full-blown recession with unemployment in the double digits? What exactly caused this? It sure wasn't capitalism, because IT HAS NOT BEEN PRACTICED yet.
3. "The people with the most resources/power selfishly pursue their own happiness which is often at the expense of their constituents." Show me your top three examples of this being the case.
Le Gendre "Laissez-nous faire!"
To Justus,
All knowledge is interrelated.
Professor,
One of us is not very good at French (me) because when I put your phrase into the translation website I got this... "The Son-In-Law Leave to do Us". I am greatly offended by that, sir! If only I knew someone who worked in the translation business.
1. I'm not talking about specific law enforcement. The point of our conversation is that we currently have evil government and authority based on their irrationality.
How do you balance the rights vs. the happiness. If it makes me happy to kill someone, I should be stopped. If it makes me happy to eat the last piece of cake (and it usually does), then the four year old just doesn't get to be as happy at his birthday party. Two extremes, both infringe on someone else's pursuit of happiness, but both don't infringe on their rights.
Where is the standard of when my desire over your desire becomes an infringement?
If I wasn't at work, I'd respond to the other points also. Maybe later.
se méfier de que le chien part derrière
Hey, That means something about a buttox!!!
I think we should all pause to remember, the legacy of The Ole' Ball Coach
Anonymous,
It turns out I cannot have a rational conversation with you since you cannot tell the difference between right to life/pursuit of one's own happiness and desiring a piece of cake. Let's just say that I have a viewpoint and you have yours.
Lumbee, you know exactly how I feel about Bobby Bowden. And you also know how I feel about Jimbo Fisher. Just so that others know--NO ONE will ever replace Coach Bowden in my heart (pound for pound, Paterno comes in at a close second, but Bowden definitely has more accomplishments than Joe Pa), especially not that little whining coach-in-waiting. Everytime I see Jimbo, he's complaining to some receiver or QB, or has a bitter look on his face, or is fighting with his own shadow.
Robert Bowden, Jr. What a man, what a man, what a mighty good man! The best who has ever been.
Professor, I believe you misunderstood my point. I'm not saying the two are the same, and I clearly recognize the difference. Here is where I was trying to go.
It is the government's responsibility to protect individual rights and the freedom to pursue individual happiness. Sometimes the pursuit of one person's happiness may hinder or infringe upon another's. How do you judge when the government should step in? I was saying they obviously should step in for murder, but at what point does my pursuit of happiness preventing your pursuit become a legal issue.
Anonymous,
Perhaps, you are not fully aware of what "rights" means. "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context." (Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness) It basically refers to an action. In essence, you--as well as I and everyone else--have the right (take the proper action) to pursue your happiness. How does someone violate that right? By keeping you from taking that action. So now let's look at your "cake" example: you want the last piece of cake, as well as the 4-year-old birthday boy. You take the cake, which is well within your right (proper action). The 4-year-old also had a right to take the cake too, that is, he too took the proper action to obtain the piece of cake. You got their first, or you were stronger, or you were better in one form or another to take the cake. No rights being violated there. Now, what if you had taken the 4-year-old and cuffed him in his basement while you ate his cake? That would be a violation of his rights. So that others are able to understand what I mean by all this, change the word "cake" in the above example to "job."
I hope this is clear. If not, then please refer to this website:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/life--right_to.html
Some more light reading about rights to pursue one's happiness:
The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
"It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men."
I understand what you are saying, but I can't resist the temptation to poke a stick and remark how this can be interpreted to resemble the laissez-faire capitalism you love so much.
Thousands of people devote their lives to a career so that a few elite capitalists (and their bankers) can reap the largest share of the financial rewards.
I am for capitalism with rules, so perhaps wannabe capitalism is the best label for me. Thanks!
Justus,
Give me your top three "rules" that you would apply to capitalism. Oh, why not make it your top five.
Where to start? I don't particularly think the following rules are useless:
1 - Child Labor Laws
2 - Anti-Trust Laws
3 - Reserve Requirements for Financial Institutions
4 - Environmental Laws (specifically clean water, air, and soil)
However, the most important rule should be "If the Government giveth, the Government can taketh" by which I mean this - I would be for a lot fewer (almost non, actually) rules if the corporation wasn't such a privileged and protected entity. If business owners and investors were to assume full liability via sole proprietorship or unlimited liability partnerships, then we wouldn't need as many rules and regulations, as businesses would be forced to equally consider the best interests of everyone. But as long as businesses line up for the security of limited liability, than the the Government that gives them such protections can also set whatever rules they determine to be in the interest of the general public that is at the whim of corporate "persons" with no personality, empathy, life span, and only a psychopathic fixation on earnings. Shareholder interests are the overriding consideration of a corporation, and consumers, communities, and the public are merely means to an end.
Child labor laws--if a 14-year-old wants to work past 11pm on a school night, and his parents do not mind, I see no problem with it. (I should know, I was one 14-year-old who worked until 1 a.m. on school nights to make extra tips.)
Anti-trust laws--I highly disagree with you here. These laws are one of the most evil laws created by government. They greatly restrict free trade.
Reserve Requirements for Financial Institutions--I am not aware of what this is. But it sounds like government intervention into the banking system, so I am a little suspicious.
Environmental laws--it depends on the case. Pollution is one thing; not being given the opportunity to purchase land because we need to save the natural habitat of the snapdragon-colored owls is another.
"I would be for a lot fewer (almost non, actually) rules if the corporation wasn't such a privileged and protected entity."
--The corporations are privileged because certain government officials passed laws in order to make them privileged. Car insurance, Health insurance, Halliburton.
"than the the (sic) Government that gives them such protections can also set whatever rules they determine to be in the interest of the general public"
--Who is this general public? What if my interests are different from my neighbor's interest? Who chooses? What you actually mean is that this "general interest of the public" is really in the hands of a powerful few--those who can influence government. Welcome to our current situation.
"as businesses would be forced to equally consider the best interests of everyone."
--FORCE them? Equally consider the best interests of EVERYONE? This is an impossibility. My best interest may be different from my neighbor's. How is it that this business is to consider my best interest when it is in direct opposition to my neighbor's?
A person running a business doesn't have to consider a single shred of your or my interest, only HIS OWN. And what makes it worse is that you want this to be forced onto the business. If this is "libertarianism," then no thank you. I'll stick to my laissez-faire capitalism. Justus, as much as I hate to say it, your program above is fascist, namely since it gives the government power to control the businesses (it would be socialist if you had the government RUNNING THE ENTIRE business sector).
Professor, I am as far from fascist as possible, you simply don't understand what I am saying. I'll assume it is because I explained it poorly, so let me put it another way.
If you own a business as a sole proprietor, and you ONLY consider your own interests to the exclusion of your potential customers, community, and competitors, I can pretty much guarantee you it will fail. Yes, your OWN interests (career, life goals, emotional, financial, etc.) should take the top slot in terms of priority, as it wouldn't make sense to go into business if it would make you miserable, but the interests of others should be very close behind. Stated another way, it is in your best interest to consider the interests of others, otherwise you could lose absolutely everything you own. Can you say lawsuit?
For any limited-liability organization, the owner(s) = the investor(s), EXCEPT, because of government granted protection, they can only lose the amount they invest, and no more. Unlike a sole proprietor, your personal home, bank accounts, etc. can't be touched. This in turn, both theoretically and empirically, encourages riskier behavior by the corporation. Since the government grants the protections that lead to risk, then it has a moral obligation to seek to balance that risk. This is done with rules/regulations/laws.
There is a strong case to be made that the risk-minimizing function of a corporation has allowed for unprecedented innovation since they became ubiquitous in the last 100+ years, but that has come at the great costs also, as innovations can be extremely risky and fail. (Exhibit A: Mortgage backed securities)
My position is that a person, if they can be held fully responsible, should have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want, with NO government oversight. This means personally, and professionally in any business venture they pursue.
However, a limited liability organization is NOT a person (unless we consider psychotic schizophrenic sociopaths), it is a government granted fiction. The government that grants MUST have the power to limit the damage done by the beast they created.
In summary, I am deeply skeptical of corporations (as was America in general pre-20th century).
If you understood fascism, you would know it is precisely the opposite of what I have outlined. Fascism is a form of corporatism that depends on the corporation as THE entity by which it grants privileges and wields power.
"In summary, I am deeply skeptical of corporations"
--That's all I need to hear you say. Now I understand your position, I just happen to disagree. I hope at some point you will see that it is not the corporations of whom you should be skeptical, it is the economic-power-wielding government who is causing this mess.
Bobby Bowden rules!
Post a Comment