Rand Paul, Racism and 1965 Civil Rights Act

[aneeshm]

For reference, I have not spoken to black or white men for more than two minutes - and that is if you combine all my encounters with the people of these races over the span of my entire life. Those two minutes come from conversations which, in their entirety, consisted of one of these people asking me the time, or some such other triviality. One extended conversation was around thirty seconds, because I wanted a man's e-mail address. That's it.

I mention this because I do not have any experience with whatever happens to be the circumlocutory vocabulary used to express unpleasant truths in this context, so my replies may come out appearing rather blunt; I attempt to say what I think, but I may not always succeed.

[aneeshm]

This guy can't be real. This has to be some kind of caricature.

Of what?

[Dinner]

Aneeshm, during the British Raj the cost of Indian or any other colonial labor was far cheaper then the cost of British or Irish labor and yet most of the manufacturing and higher paid work seemed to all go to British workers instead of cheaper colonial workers. Why was that? Systematic discrimination in favor of whites that's why. Well, educated Indians were allowed menial jobs in the civil service but seldom actually advanced to high positions unless there was a serious shortage of trained British workers to do the job (due to war or what not).

It was the same with blacks in the US.

[Dinner]

I plead ignorance. That puts a different twist on this. Not morally, but practically.

What form did the boycott take? And would it be impossible to have an all-black business? I ask out of curiosity.

In it's most violent form blacks who were considered "uppity", I.E. they demanded equal rights and wanted to do the jobs traditionally reserved for whites only, where simply hanged by lynch mobs. Right in the public streets. The message was clear "Blacks need to know their place."

[David Floyd]

Seriously, what sort of ethical calculus holds that the right to discriminate is more important than the right to not be discriminated against?

The type of ethical calculus that says that if I open my own business, I can hire whoever I want, for whatever reason I want, and I can also not hire whoever I want, for whatever reason I want. If I am a business owner, and I think blacks, Hispanic women, and disabled people add no value to my business, and that only white males do add value, I should be able to pursue a hiring plan based on that.
Of course, if I'm wrong and I'm giving up significant talent that would improve my business because of my attitude, then the market will reflect that. As a business owner, I will then choose to value either greater profits or my own dogma.

But either way, it's none of the government's business. I mean, seriously - you bring up "ethical calculus". What the mother**** kind of ethical calculus gives you the right to interfere in my hiring practices for my own business? That's the most ****ing ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If I hate ******s, I should be able to never hire them, and the penalty for that should simply be the business loss I incur by having my staff both not reflect my community, and not taking advantage of available talent.

But that's it. No one has an inherent right to a job. That is ****ing retarded. In fact, no one has a right not to be discriminated against - that concept is ****ing retarded, too. If I discriminate, I do so at my own risk. If my prejudices are more important to me than my business results and profitability, that is no one's business by my own and my shareholder's. OTOH, if my prejudices result in stronger business results, then why the **** should the government be able to tell me that I'm doing it wrong? Riddle me that, Captain Communist?

[giblets]

All I can offer for those poor, downtrodden racist business owners is the world's tiniest violin.

[Hauldren Collider]

There's a more important point there gribbler. If companies feel the need to hire untalented people to keep their employees racially diverse because of government laws, that is a big problem.

[MrFun]

The type of ethical calculus that says that if I open my own business, I can hire whoever I want, for whatever reason I want, and I can also not hire whoever I want, for whatever reason I want. If I am a business owner, and I think blacks, Hispanic women, and disabled people add no value to my business, and that only white males do add value, I should be able to pursue a hiring plan based on that.
Of course, if I'm wrong and I'm giving up significant talent that would improve my business because of my attitude, then the market will reflect that. As a business owner, I will then choose to value either greater profits or my own dogma.

But either way, it's none of the government's business. I mean, seriously - you bring up "ethical calculus". What the mother**** kind of ethical calculus gives you the right to interfere in my hiring practices for my own business? That's the most ****ing ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If I hate ******s, I should be able to never hire them, and the penalty for that should simply be the business loss I incur by having my staff both not reflect my community, and not taking advantage of available talent.

But that's it. No one has an inherent right to a job. That is ****ing retarded. In fact, no one has a right not to be discriminated against - that concept is ****ing retarded, too. If I discriminate, I do so at my own risk. If my prejudices are more important to me than my business results and profitability, that is no one's business by my own and my shareholder's. OTOH, if my prejudices result in stronger business results, then why the **** should the government be able to tell me that I'm doing it wrong? Riddle me that, Captain Communist?

So does everyone understand now why I often confuse libertarianism with retardation?

[David Floyd]

So does everyone understand now why I often confuse libertarianism with retardation?

No. You think blacks deserve protection because they are black, and that anytime any majority discriminates in any way against any minority then the government should step in. I disagree, and say that the market will sort it out - if the racists are wrong, then they are doing themselves a disservice which will be reflected in their business results. If they are right, then who ****ing cares? And if you're so certain they are wrong, then surely you don't have a problem with them going out of business in the face of racially diverse competition, right?

To clarify, I think that racism is stupid, but I also think that the idea of racial/gender/whatever diversity being a significant boost to business results is equally stupid.

More importantly, I think the idea of government regulation of hiring practices is even more stupid.

[Berzerker]

the free market weeds out racism... If I think a business is racist I'll boycott them. So will plenty of other people... Thats how the free market enforces moral codes, the consumers vote with their dollars. And monopoly aint no protection, the bigger the business the more sensitive they are to potential PR disasters. But like Gribbler said, that violin is tiny

[Al B. Sure!]

[Dinner]

The free market did a very poor job of weeding out racism historically. There were never state laws about private establishments/businesses being white only and contrary to the claims made by some people instead of going out of business these establishments thrived and became, often, the dominate businesses. The best restaurants, the best hotels, the best transportation companies, the best of... well, everything in the south were white only. Contrary to the claims made the free market completely failed to deliver where as legislation ended the official institutional racism over night.

[David Floyd]

The free market did a very poor job of weeding out racism historically. There were never state laws about private establishments/businesses being white only and contrary to the claims made by some people instead of going out of business these establishments thrived and became, often, the dominate businesses. The best restaurants, the best hotels, the best transportation companies, the best of... well, everything in the south were white only. Contrary to the claims made the free market completely failed to deliver where as legislation ended the official institutional racism over night.

My point is, who cares? If business owners are willing to drive down their profitability by refusing to even consider hiring 13% of the population, that's none of the government's business.

Now, I think it's completely proper for the government to have rules about racism - no racism in public hiring, for example, and no dealing with private businesses without fair hiring practice. I'm fine with that, but I'm not fine with the government legislating it.

[Dinner]

I care? People keep claiming the free market will sort it out but it never does. That's an obvious sign of bull****. Obvilously government action is needed to sort out institutional racism.

[KrazyHorse]

Oerdin, if there's a law against the market operating then it's not a free market.