The Official Bendis Board 2012 Presidential Campaign Thread

[Ben]

I don't think libertarians assume that. They probably assume that there will be balances against douchebaggery.

So using Ray's earlier example, if a boss fires a Jewish person because he's upset about Jesus's crucifixion, customers could correct this by taking their business elsewhere.

One of the numerous problems with that assumption is that there are places in which discrimination is socially acceptable, so this type of system would often screw over many minorities, although I doubt that is Brian's intention.

It also assumes that (1) customers would have perfect information at what goes on in these companies and (2) would be financially flexible enough to respond to them. Those are big assumptions.

[Brian Defferding]

Alright, I want to hear this. Why is Ray wrong?

Because he thinks it should be a legal entitlement for any and every potential employer to put one set of qualifications over another. The part where he feels it ought to be a legally enforceable practice is wrong, because what a qualification is to one employer's eye could be a mis-qualification in another's, and so on.

Qualifications are arbitrary. While I agree that an employer should not care about skin color, religion, gender or sexual preference, that's ultimately not my decision because I don't run that company. I know I'm repeating myself here, but it seems a few of you here reach a logical wall and cannot compute that statement.

[Brian Defferding]

You are saying terrible things in a very civilized manner, but they are still terrible things. A passionate response is justified.

In other words, you are saying that you disagree with what I say, and instead of making a well reasoned response, contempt following with offensive remarks is okay and justified. Gotcha.

[Matt Jay]

Because he thinks it should be a legal entitlement for any and every potential employer to put one set of qualifications over another. The part where he feels it ought to be a legally enforceable practice is wrong, because what a qualification is to one employer's eye could be a mis-qualification in another's, and so on.

Qualifications are arbitrary. While I agree that an employer should not care about skin color, religion, gender or sexual preference, that's ultimately not my decision because I don't run that company. I know I'm repeating myself here, but it seems a few of you here reach a logical wall and cannot compute that statement.

We get it. You're not racist, you just want to let racists run their business the way they want to. Maybe redub the Civil Rights Act the Entitlement Act and throw the whole thing out. After all, things were so much better for nonwhites before it.

[Matt Jay]

In other words, you are saying that you disagree with what I say, and instead of making a well reasoned response, contempt following with offensive remarks is okay and justified. Gotcha.

His response was well-reasoned, it was just packaged with an appropriate amount of outrage. You're offended by the package containing his message, he was offended by the substance of your message.

[Brian Defferding]

The country you describe would be anarchy.

So, a free country is anarchy to you? You're wrong, but okay.

Precisely. That's the kind of crazy shit that would happen in Deff's America.

And everybody gets fired and hired today for justifiable reasons thanks to that regulatory utopia set in place? How am I being naive again?

[Brian Defferding]

His response was well-reasoned

His tone says otherwise.

[Brian Defferding]

They think people will spend their money altruistically instead of like they actually spend their money.

They think charity can replace social programs for the same reason.

It goes beyond just saying "replace socialized government programs with charity." It's about lessening the government-enforceable elements that cause various services and goods to be more expensive than what they would be in a normal voluntary market.

And I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of those elements going on right now.

[Brian Defferding]

So violating the rights of others is acceptable if it's part of your culture?

Got it.

What is this...I don't even....uhhhhhhhhgh.....

[Brian Defferding]

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware wanting equal rights made me uppity.

You don't want equal rights. You fall into the same problem that Raydawg and Keith P. have. You think letting businesses hire and fire who they want, and for whatever reason they want, a "violation" of human rights. And yes, that's confusing the difference between rights and entitlement.