The Republican Primary victory by Dr. Rand Paul displayed the influence the Tea Party can have on the future of the Republican Party. Dr. Paul is a lifetime Libertarian who campaigned in the Primary on fiscal conservative message but may have just unraveled that message with his comments made on the Rachel Maddow Show. The issue that may be Dr. Paul's Achilles Heel is his view on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although he agrees with ending the racism in government and institutional racism but he does feel the Government overreaches when it comes to private businesses. The comment made by Dr. Paul does create an interesting philosophical debate on the right of private business.
Earlier this year we saw private business rights challenged, which I do not believe any lawsuits ever came of it, when a doctor placed a sign outside his office telling any Obama supporters need not apply. The sign did have another twist because of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors take before being allowed to practice medicine. Yet it still brings up the rights of private business. Does it make sense, from the standpoint of owning a business, to turn away anyone when they want to purchase from one's business? No. Do we need protections, like OSHA, for our citizens? Yes.
How far can the Government go to tell a private business how they are to run their own business? Setting aside Dr. Paul's comments a local private business, Target, had to deal with religious issues from their Muslim workers. For those that do not recall, Target Muslim cashiers refused to scan pork products because it violated their religious freedoms. In the end Target bowed to the perceived violation of the Muslim's Constitutional right to practice their religion. Here is the thing, when one agrees to work for a private employer for the most part your Constitutional Rights stop at the door step. Another example of Government intrusion into private business is the banning of smoking. While we can agree that smoking is not healthy for one; yet if one takes a job in a bar or restaurant or any establishment that allows smoking then we as an employee need to recognize that.
Now where the Government can mitigate the impact of smoking is through requirement of filtration to recycle the air. When it comes to private property are we okay with continual government intrusion?
Chris, their constitutional rights don't stop at the front door because their employed there. However, their right to be employed there does since they don't have that "right". However, unfortunately, liberalism in society has moved the pendullum too far on this subject and Target knew they'd lose the lawsuit if they fired these cashiers and the bad press would hurt sales.
ReplyDeleteSo it makes good business sense to cave in this regard no matter how wrong it is from a business perspective. Unfortunately it's a catch-22 that businesses deal with daily.
Sometimes, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. So you just try to muddle through as best you can.
So, businesses are only semi-private and owners have very little control over their businesses?
ReplyDeleteChris, only the ownership of businesses is private. Businesses don't operate in a vacuum but are influenced by public policy and leanings.
ReplyDeleteIf a business like target wants to ignore the fallout from perceived in-sensitivity to muslim employees that's the perogative, however the fallout from that perception might be greater than the fallout from a more conciliatory tone. Therefore, while businesses do have total control over their business, their choices must operate outside the perfect world of theory and in reality. Because of this, they may not always like the decisions that they are required to make in order to operate in the society they do business in.
In other words, no, businesses do not have total control over their businesses. If they do something, either perceived or real, that offends their customers then they can expect a consequence. And that consequence may not rely on logic, reason or justice.
I agree with you there Kevin that businesses will be impacted by the decisions they make, but shouldn't they be allowed to make those decisions? A lively debate has been raging on Facebook with me and several of my black friends about Dr. Paul's comments.
ReplyDeleteMy point I am attempting to make there, and here, is that business owners bear the brunt of the risk for offering their services and they ought to have the right to choose who they serve as clientele. Personally being a small business owner I do not care what color, sexual orientation or religion one is. My services, through my business, is opening to everyone that wants to assertain.
At the same time though, it is a private business and if a private business owner wants to, which I don't understand why, not serve a certain segment of the population so be it. That business owner will have to deal with the consequences of lost revenues not the customer they choose to bar.
My problem is that the decision for a business to discriminate goes beyond a business profit impact. A business that discriminates will impact the community by creating tension and anger in the community and impacts public safety.
ReplyDeleteFurther, Congress can no doubt regulate this via the Commerce Clause, unless you want to toss out decades of precedent. Failure to do so creates tacit acceptance of discrimination, in my opinion.
One more thing, I'm skeptical of the market taking care of the issue since it didn't for 100 years between the 13-15th amendments and the 64 Civil Rights Act.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree that at it's base, industry has no incentive to be color-blind. But do consumers or employees have the right to demand that they not touch products which they knew that business produced/sold? THe pork example is one such that I find absurd. They aren't being forced to eat it, they aren't being forced to touch it (it's wrapped in plastic) so where is the offense? What next? If someone doesn't like the red shirts that Target employees wear can they sue?
ReplyDeleteThat said, businesses spend millions to counter the effects of bad press when it happens. Bad press can kill a business. Just look at BP down in the gulf of mexico right now. How much would it have cost to have a functional battery in that blow out preventer? How much is cleanup costing? (1 billion and counting) How much will the bad press cost them? Billions more.
Bad press, no matter how rightly or wrongly deserved can kill companies so they must respond.
As to Rand Paul, I cringe when I hear him speak because of his obvious novice status and lack of filter. But I like that he shook up the establishment. We'll see if he can get elected.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThe Commerce Clause only applies to intrastrate commerce.The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm).
That being said, if someone who owns resturant and garners nothing from another state, foreign nation or India tribe does not fall under jurisdication of the Commerce Clause. Granted since it's inception liberal interpretation has taken place.
A true free market is color-blind. For instance, there exists several bathhouses and bars strictly for the gay and lesbian community throughout the United States. The reason such private business sprouted up was because the gay and lesbian community was being shunned from other similar private businesses. Same can be true for other businesses as well.
In a truely free market there will be someone or a group of people that will fill a need or demand of the consumer. That being said, if we allowed business to provide their service or product to whom they like and the same company prevented another person from getting it based on race,sex, creed, religion, eye color, etc...someone would see that as an opportunity to fill that demand.
Does it make sense for a business owner, in good or bad economic times, to limited their service or product to a certain segment of the population; no. And that business would be rooted out and those that patronized that established would be labeled as well. Society, with passing a law, would take care of that in diverse locations.
First, the commerce clause applies to INTERSTATE commerce, not intrastate. Second, the court has essentially ruled that purely intrastate activity doesn't really exist. Someone growing their own wheat for their own consumption was found to violate laws enacted using the commerce clause. Like I said, decades of precedent support the use and you have to disregard that in order to find no commerce activity.
ReplyDeleteIf we have such a wonderful color blind free market, why did racism exist until the civil rights movement and still beyond? Are you suggesting we want to have racism? The free market wouldn't have taken care of racism 50 years ago.
Your example of gay bars existing because they were shunned actually shows the problem. The free market didn't address the underlying problem. It's not a good thing that these bars had to open because of hatred and people being victimized.
History shows that society couldn't take care of the problem. Is your last point suppose to be without passing a law? It makes no sense otherwise. And the law isn't to advance and help those in diverse locations, the market is certainly more capable of fixing things there, it's in areas that are predominately one race, etc. The market won't take care of the problem because there isn't enough influence. So tough luck? Why should someone have to live with racism, even if they are 1 of the race out of 100,000?
Anon
ReplyDeleteThe Free Market still worked prior to the Civil Rights movement. Racism exists in everyone of us. I recently read a book called Blink and it discussed how we all make split second decisions based on a subconscience notion. A number of physchologists devised a tool called Implicit Association Test that gauges ones split second association between words, beliefs and behavior. Try it at www.implicit.harvard.edu.
The fact that gay and lesbian bars were established is an example of the Free Market addressing a need within society. What often gets muddled into the Free Market conversation is emotion or moral thought. Racism, discrimination and moral issues is a societal concern and not something that the Free Market will address.
Take the IAT test and let me know how you do.
Chris, the problem with your premise about free markets is that history has proven that free markets exist only in theory. The US is not free market but rather crony-capitalism. And in a free market (ie. one without regulation) oil spills would be more common, financial upheavals would be more common, etc. This is proven by history and not some pie in the sky assumption without foundation.
ReplyDeleteThe 1800's showed that lack of financial regulation led to massive boom/bust cycles within the financial system. The early 1900's showed that lack of regulation led to massive environmental disasters from oil drilling.
If history is a guide, true free markets cannot occur because people do not operate as the theory dictates. People will ignore the "greater good" and focus on short term gains to the detriment of society.
However, regulations should be common sense and not overly burdensome so as to avoid the opposite extreme.
Different Anon. Viper, please take a Constitutional Law course at an accredited university. It's absolutely painful to read your "legal" arguments and commentary on the Constitution. It's blatantly obvious that you haven't a clue when it comes to the complexity of the Constitution and the opinions of the Supreme Court. If you don't want to take a class for fear of possibly subjecting yourself to a liberal professor, do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of "Tribe's American Constitutional Law, 3d" from Thomson West. It might do you some good and lend some credibility to your opinions.
ReplyDeleteBut is the "free market" so important that we should allow, in places of public accommodation, racism and discrimination to exist? Wouldn't you see that type of racism or discrimination extend to hiring? What would a small, private business owner who has chosen to serve only whites do when an African American applies for a job? Do you honestly think that he's going to hire that person? Now you've moved from discrimination in who you serve to discrimination in who you hire.
ReplyDeleteAre you for repealing laws related to discrimination in hiring?
Kevin
ReplyDeleteI understand the hazards of a true free market which is why I think it is okay for us to have agencies like OSHA, EEOC, and SEC to ensure fair, ethical and standards are met in the industry. Where I start to draw the line is when government dictates to private business on who they can/cannot provide their services to or restrict them from providing a place of enjoyment for a legal product (smoking ban).
The free market is not established to acknowledge a greater good; rather it is to meet a need and turn a profit. In the process it creates jobs and a tax base.
Different Anon
I never claimed to be a Constitutional Lawyer yet I have read it and am interpreting it from an average mans level. If the Supreme Court and lawyers were the end all then we'd never see a reversal on a decision by the Supreme Court. Jim Crow laws being a prime example. Abortion is another if the right set of Justices get put on the Court. The US Supreme Court, albeit highly education people, is made up humans with their own ideaological agenda.
I will look for your book you reference and add it to my list to read. I appreciate it too.
Clark
If a private business owner, of what ever race, wanted to only serve Asians and a non-Asian applied per the EEOC they would have to be given a fair shot at the job. Now, if they choose not to hire that person because of not being Asian then they would be in violation of the EEOC to which fines would be levied. I think the EEOC is good but it is still a private business. I am not advocationg repeal of EEOC laws.
Sorry, this is just plain false: "If the Supreme Court and lawyers were the end all then we'd never see a reversal on a decision by the Supreme Court."
ReplyDeleteWho do you think currently aruges for reversal of decissions? That would be lawyers. And who rules on reversals? that would be Justices.
It seems you are saying that non-lawyers are the only ones who have argued for a reversal of law in front of the SC.
So basically, you feel the government has no role in race relations.
So how can you advocate for the right of a business to not serve people based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or some other trait but then penalize them if they want to discriminate against an individual when hiring? Why is one okay but not the other?
ReplyDeleteChris, I'm going to be honest here. (well, more honest, and perhaps blunt)
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time stomaching the racial arguments that you and some others have made regarding the need or lack thereof for affirmative action, civil rights act, etc. I have a hard time for one precise reason - you and the others who I've heard make this argument are white, middle class, males who have never faced discrimination in any true sort.
Based upon this, to argue that these were unnecessary means that you are arguing from a perspective of personal ignorance. By that I mean you do not know what discrimination is other than what you've read in books. (Neither do I by the way)
Until we are the sufferers of discrimination it's hard to argue that these laws weren't valid and necessary. And based upon the historical facts that the US history presents for the issues of race relations, I would argue that free markets will NOT self correct to address the fairness that society should have.
Thus the laws are required.
Anon
ReplyDeleteI understand that lawyers and Justices are involved in the reversal but if the law is the law and the Constitution is the Consitution, why would we need to reverse a US Supreme Court decision after one has already been rendered?
It was stated above, "It might do [me] some good and lend some credibility to [my] opinions" if I were to take a class on Constitutional Law or read a book by Thomson West. Now if future lawyers and Justices can reverse a US Supreme Court that is standing as precedent, how much validity does that original decision have then?
I am not saying that non-lawyers are the only ones to argue for reversal. Simply put, I am interpreting the Constitution from the "man on the street" angle and not the lawyer speak that muttles the conversation. Personally, I do not believe the Framers intended for the Constitution not to be interpretted at the most remdial of levels but scholarly interpretations have turned the Constitution on its head.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that based upon the history of our nation certain pieces of legislation were required to ensure our preamble applied to all. Yes, I am a white male living in Minnesota yet I still can recognize racism, discrimination and lose of freedom.
To have lived it does bring an emotional aspect to the arguement that can, not always, cloud the conversation and impede real improvement. Society ills, morals, ethics and practices are not what the Free Market will address. I have never contended that it would either. Simply, I have said, that the Free Market will recognize a need by consumers that is not being met and seek to fill it.
That being said, if a business owner does not want to serve white people another person, based on the Free Market principles, will open up a place where white people can be served. And we can input any race, religion, sex, or whatever in there. Women did not feel comfortable going to gyms with men so women only gyms sprung up. To some degree we are all prejudice, racist, and discriminate.
Did you take that IAT test? After I read that part of the book in Blink I did take the test routinely but I do admit I have not taken in several months. It is pretty telling.
Clark
ReplyDeleteI see providing a service or a product different than hiring of employees. This applies to college exams as well, I believe that blind screenings/interviews are the best way to determine if the candidate for the job and/or college entrance gives the candidate and the business/school the best opportunity to determine fit and acceptability.
The book Blink, to which I have referenced a few times, talks about the use of blind auditions in the orchestra industry. One of the storys highlights a woman's dream of becoming part of the orchestra. The conductor heard her, well heard number X, perform behind a screen. Once the conductor heard the performance he ended the auditions because number X played in the manner he was seeking. The Conductor was disappointed and shocked to discover that number X was a woman because his trained ear and prejudices led him to believe that only men can play that instrument.
This is why I seperate the employment from the product or service offered.
I honestly don't even know where to start.
ReplyDeleteLawyer speak? Muttles the conversation? Yeah, I hate when people who are educated on a topic talk about the topic using the words of the trade.
Really, I'm dumbfounded. You just made it clear to me, in my opinion, that the other anon was right and you have no idea what you are talking about relating to the constitution. No, you don't need to be a lawyer to understand the constitution but you do need an understanding of the judicial process and of the constitution to talk about it.
It seems you don't agree with the Founding Fathers who believed that the Constituion had to be a living, breathing document that adjusts to society in order for this country to grow and adjust to the changing needs of its citizens.
Just wow.
How is discrimination in providing a service or product different from discrimination in hiring an individual to provide that service or product?
ReplyDeleteHow exactly would you propose that we make all job interviews blind? Can you "scrub" a resume so as to eliminate all indication of a person's gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, or any other trait that may be used to discriminate against them?
Anon
ReplyDeleteYes, lawyer speak. I do agree that it is important to have educated and informed discussion on topics. Both of which can take place without the legal wranglings of lawyers. Part of the reason why bills like Health Care and Stimulus are thousand of pages long is due to lawyer writing that the majority of Congress members do not even comprehend.
I have read the Consitution and have a version of hit on my desktop. I understand the judicial process and it's role in our Republic. As to the Founding Fathers belief that the document is a living breathing item, I do agree with that. The living breathing part has to do more with the ability to adapt it through Amendments and not through interpretation as the winds of liberalism, conservatism and others wish it.
I see you did not address the notion of reversing precident.
Times change. Opinions change. Needs change. So, I have no problem with reversing precident and judges and justices take great care in coming to a conclusion that reverses current understanding.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't much for me to address when I think the initial statement lacks understanding and thought. You have never changed an opinion you've had from earlier in your life when your cicrcumstances were totally different?
But seriously, what's wrong with lawyer speak? Should doctors not use medical terminology? Should carpenters call a hammer "the poundy thing"? Lawyers don't just throw words around. In fact, they take great care to be percise and eliminate any misunderstanding that could occur. Well, at least good ones do.
How can you talk about the law without using words related to the law? You can't. If you feel alienate, go to law school. Hamline and Mitchell both have part time programs to fit your schedule.
As far as the health care bill, really? That's what you come up with? 168 representatives and 33 senators list law as their occupation. It's Congresses job to write the law. So, one would think that, you know, legal words would be in the law. And here's a few more reasons the health care reform bill was that long. It covered a lot of stuff. It was like quadruple spaced. And the text took up about 3 inches on a page.
Finally, reading the constituion and understanding it and how to apply it totally different things. Great, you read it but it's becoming clear you don't understand it.
Clark
ReplyDeleteLet's define discrimination first: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/discrimination).
That being said. The preference of a private business owner to deny or target a certain segment of the population for their goods or services is different than hiring or not hiring someone based on characteristics of the person. The latter violates the EEOC and general code of ethics. Now, segmenting your product or service based on characteristics that violate the EEOC is not as egregous as hiring practices.
The Free Market will make up for ignornant society members by fullfiling a need not being met. If company A will not serve whites, company B right next do may and if companies A and B don't serve whites than another company will see an opportunity and open up to fill the need.
Anon
ReplyDeleteSociety opinions do change because the make up of society changes not because of time. So if reverses can exist because of current understanding then why can we not re-define State Rights and reverse McCullough v. Maryland? By reversing this decision we could do away with the health care mandate.
BTW..staffers write the bills in Congress not the individual Senators or Representatives. There is a reason why you see Staffers being grilled in committee over the bills contents and not the authors of the bill.
I am not against lawyers to use their jargon when in the court room or doctors to use their terminology when describing a medical situation. My point is that bills do not require the over use of lawyer speak. House Speaker Pelosi quipped, as health care reform was being passed, "we must first pass the legislation in order to know what is in it." Really??? If the bill was quadrupled spaced and text was 3 inches then why did so many members of Congress not read the bill prior to voting on it?
Just because I do not agree with your or the US Supreme Court interpretation does not translate into my lack of understanding. I can say that with confidence because you even acknowledge that prior members of the bench may not have gotten it right as we have seen reversals of prior decisions.
You amaze me Viper. And for all the wrong reasons. Your attmept at distinguishing between discrimination in service versus hiring fails.
ReplyDeleteThe "general code of ethics"? What?!?! "Segmenting your product or service"? Really? Segmenting? Way to white wash the issue (pun intended).
And I love how every example of discrimination you give is about whites being the victims (see comment above re "not being Asian" or immediately above where "Company A will not serve whites"). This narrative Is just so far off the mark that there are no words to describe it.
Yes, white males have had it so rough. And white males would definitely be the most victimized if we were to do away with laws preventing discrimination in places of public accommodation. Oh, I know, you can recognize racism, discrimination and loss of freedom, but apparently you don't care to do anything about it. Why would you? You're a white male, educated (debatable), employed and have (probably) never been discriminated against. You're asking yourself "what's the big deal if someone has to search for a restaurant, gas station or motel that will serve me? That sounds like fun!".
It's sad really. You are so ignorant that you are incapable of recognizing your own ignorance, lack of understanding and lack of compassion.
I hope that people read your blog, your comments and any other maniacal racings of yours and run the other way.
I hope that people read your blog, your comments and any other maniacal rants of yours and run the other way.
ReplyDeleteI'm not the last anon, but am the previous one. I've never said McCullough couldn't be reversed, I just don't think it will because I believe it was decided properly and is a proper extension of the N&P clause.
ReplyDeleteYour point about society changing doesn't make sense to me. So the country has the same number of racists as it did 100 years ago, just more non-racists? Your opinion hasn't changed on an issue over time?
I know that Congressmen don't write the bills, but I'm not sure you point again. You claimed they don't comprehend what is being based, my point was that many of them are educated on the law and still more have spent a larger portion of their lives as legislatures. They comprehend it, in my opinion.
If legislation isn't the place for legal terms of art, I'm not sure where it is.
From what I've heard, most Congressmen don't read the bills themselves. That's what there staff does and sums up what's in it. Those same staffers you credit for helping to write it.
And it's not the lack of agreement, that makes me question your understanding.
One is not required to be a lawyer to understand constitutional law. But one must know the cases, not just the particular case, but everything that came before it. That's why your "average man" approach bothers me. An average man doesn't do the proper research. To be honest, an average man won't understand all of the ins and outs of constutional law. People spend a lifetime not just studying the first amendment, but one part of it.
That's not to put you down, because I don't have much more than a broad education on the Constitution, but it should give pause when others disagree with you who have studied it.
Here’s the analogy I came up with. I like football. I know you like football. I play fantasy football. I imagine you do. I’ve even one a league or two. To get ready for the league and to stay current, I read the draft magazines, listen to “experts” on the radio or podcasts and read online. However, these doesn’t mean I’m anywhere close to capable of running an actual NFL team. Even the Raiders.
My point, others who have studied the Constitution far more than you, might be right, despite if you have a good idea or not. Likewise, I'll try to be more open to other ideas from a fresher prerspective.
Chris, extensive legalese is used in legislation for one reason only - clarity. That seems counter intuitive to a non-lawyer but it's the case all the same. The reason is that the verbiage used is critical to interpretation from a legal perspective. What that means it that if laws are not absolutely precise in their language they will face legal challenges and create loop-holes as a result.
ReplyDeleteAnd my point on your "ignorant people" comment is this, history has proven that while ignorant people might discriminate, the free market does not always fill the void. This was proven for nearly 100 years in the deep south where blacks had few choices to do business at and those they could, charged higher rates than the white only businesses because of that lack of competition.
Your utterly free market premise is wonderful in a theoretical world, but sadly human beings have somewhat destructive tendencies when their behaviors are applied to a theory. G
So how exactly is that a fair and free market? I'm all for free markets, but they should be fair.
Anon (that I amaze for all the wrong reasons)
ReplyDelete"Oh, I know, you can recognize racism, discrimination and loss of freedom, but apparently you don't care to do anything about it. Why would you?"
I do care to do things about it. I raise my children to respect others, to recognize their differences and similarities, and to fight for their choice to do what they want in life. I also apply those same items to my own personal life. I am not afraid to discuss the taboo topics with others and offer soluntions or prespective. The world is cruel, unfair and not everyone is a winner.
Yet,there are things we can do as a society to mitigate the effects it has on groups as a whole. A cottage industry has been built to keep the races apart and keep tensions high. I have been involved in intimate relationships with others that are non-white.
Just because I espouse a question about whether it is okay for a private business to use the same discrimination that you or any other consumer use when chosing the businesses to patron I am some how ignorant, lack understanding and lack compassion. Really? Where is the logic in that? Why is okay for you, or anyone, to discriminate against a business while the private business owner cannot do the same?
As I have said many of times, personally I would not as a small business owner myself. I don't care if it were the roaring 20's again. My foundation I established for my business is to offer the best advice and service to anyone seeking services within my industry. I have clients that are non-white, non-english speaking.
I didn't write the blog to be popular or get the most hits. I wrote the blog as an outlet to have open, honest and constructive conversations on topics that the media and people in general are too afraid to have. Government is not always the answer yet we teach our children it is. One day we will all wake up and no longer be able to choose our lot in life. Until that point I will continue to write my blog in a manner that spurs conversation and take a stance on the issues, regardless if it is my personal belief, that is not being voiced; right or wrong.
What is this "cottage industry" you speak of that "has been built up to keep the races apart and keep tensions high"?
ReplyDeleteYou are ignorant, lack understanding and lack compassion not because you ask "a question about whether it is okay for a private business to" discriminate, but because you are willing to subject others to discrimination and racism because in your mind, that's a small price to pay if it means less government intrusion. What you regard as freedom from this oppressive government is viewed by, I dare say most of society, is a return to the dark ages of race relations in this country.
Let's be clear too, the form of "discrimination" that consumers exercise is much less nefarious than that exercised by a shop owner who refuses to serve or hire a person based upon their race. As a consumer, I have a choice to make regarding which businesses I patronize. Personally, my choice is not impacted by the race, ethnicity or sexual orienatation of the proprietor. Why should we allow businesses to make that choice for us? Sure, I could go elsewhere, but this business offers the highest quality product/service, they're the closest, most convenient, have the lowest price, etc.
Government is not always the answer. But government may be the best answer or option when faced with an intractable problem like discrimination or racism.
And as far as your "courage" is concerned in writing this blog, it's not courageous at all. I might be willing to view you as a courageous person if you would, at least once in your (blog posting) life, admit that your take on things may be uninformed, ignorant, off-the-mark, odd or just plain wrong. That's real courage.
Anon
ReplyDeleteI just said that I,sometimes, take up the arguement for the side with little or no voice here. I never laid claim to have all the answers nor am I arrogant enough to think I do either.
I do see a difference in hiring practices and ability of a private business owner to run their business without a heavy hand from government. At one point in our nations history we needed a little encouragement to end some of the private business practices. Now it is time to dial back some and allow the free market thrive. Consumers will speak with their pocketbooks. If they do not approve of the only segmenting the business They will go elsewhere. The business owner than will need to make a decision.
Is it courageous to post anonymously? A benefit from starting thus blog has been the participation of people with the expertise in law or other party affiliations.
But as I said before, I will bring up topics that others will not and will assist in the defense of unpopular positions to Strengthen the arguments of others. In order to improve ones position is to know all sides to the conversation. That is what I hope we can bring out here.
Chris I find this comment curious.
ReplyDelete"I do see a difference in hiring practices and ability of a private business owner to run their business without a heavy hand from government. "
Exactly which laws are heavy handed in our current assortment of regulations? Better yet, which regulator is the problem to employers? Is it the pesky EEOC? SEC? FDA? FCC? OSHA? FDA? Exactly which one do you take issue with? It sounds like it's the EEOC in this blog.
Are you really saying that regulation is so cumbersome that american businesses are being regulated to death? If so, which industries are grossly over-regulated and require de-regulation to compete?
And how does forcing an employer/business owner to service the entire community and not just whites hurt his business? Are you implying that the community is so racist that they won't buy from a shop owner who sells to blacks? This was one argument in the south back in the day by the way.
Exactly how is a business owner hurt by being forced to not discriminate. Other than having a larger customer base which results in more revenue and thereby more profits. Other than by having more employees in their base to choose from, which means more competition for the jobs which means lower wages which means more profits. Other than having less legal suits for discrimination against them, which means less legal expenses which means more profits.
Exactly how are businesses hurt by these "heavy handed" rules? If we understand what is hurting the businesses, perhaps the logic of your position will appear.
Oh, and I'd like to point out what de-regulation has done for industry Chris.
ReplyDeleteLook at big oil. How did deregulation work there? How about the communications industry, how many choices for cable do you have? Did deregulation work there? How about the coal industry, ask the miners in W. Virginia how coal deregulation helped them?
Regulations are necessary. Again, I think you are living in a ficticious world where theories such as free-markets really exist and can be implemented without the impacts that human creed have upon them - thereby creating a utopian society where harmony and equilibrium exist in the marketplace. All thanks to free markets.
I get your desire for that, I'm a free marketer whenever possible, but deregulation has tended to do more harm than good in our history. I refuse to believe that deregulating the laws against discrimination would result in a utopian society where discrimination didn't occur.
And if it does occur, it must be erradicated because it's a cancer upon society.
The least courageous thing you can do is claim to be taking the contrarian position when the kitchen gets a bit too hot. I don't buy it. It's just an easy out for you.
ReplyDeleteHow does a law which outlaws discrimination against individuals based on race, ethnicity, etc. prevent the free market from thriving? Like Kevin asked, too many customers? Too many profits? If you regard these laws as heavy handed than you must be David Duke or someone of his ilk. Honestly!
And again with the term "segmenting"! It's racism, not segmentation.
And I'll continue to post anonymously. That is unless you decide to take that freedom of choice away from me.
It is not too hot in the kitchen syndrome going on here. Anyone that knows me, knows that I play devils advocate a lot and will speak for the minority voice in a debate even if it runs contrary to my belief on the topic. I am not taking an easy way out.
ReplyDeleteThe orginal questions I posed:
Does it make sense, from the standpoint of owning a business, to turn away anyone when they want to purchase from one's business?
Do we need protections, like OSHA, for our citizens?
How far can the Government go to tell a private business how they are to run their won business?
Now, I state that it does not make sense for a business owner to turn away business as the Doctor attempted by placing an Anti-Obama sign outside his dor and I do agree with regulations like OSHA and EEOC. Outside of that, I think we need to re-evaluate the restrictions placed on business owners especially since ownership is more diverse than it was 60-70 years ago.
I never laid claim that preventing a business owner from discriminating the clientele serviced hampered the Free Market. If I did, please hightlight so I can clarify. What I did state was if business owner A wanted to serve just [fill in] and not sell to [fill in] they ought to have that right as private business owners. I went on to explain that if business A decides to do this then a new market opens up for owner B to capture.
The choice of the private owner is not about profit or customers for it were then we'd really have nothing to talk about. It is about preference of the business owner, a private business owner, to service the type of clientele they see fit. Let me put it this way, private golf courses are segregated by more than just race. They are also segregated by money and class standing. Should the Wayzata Golf Club, I think it is still called that, be forced to allow the public in?
And Anonymous, I would never take away your choice or freedoms no matter how opposite they may be to may own belief system. That would make me a hypocrite and allow me to take the easy way out.
Kevin..I will be back to address more of your questions. Right now I must make money for the business that I own. I have a great example on how the FDA is focusing on the wrong end of the spectrum with their policies.
I think you are asking the wrong question. It doesn't matter if it makes sense from a business standpoint. The question should be do we want to live in a country that allows it citizens to discriminate against others because of race, etc.? Is allowing that good for the country? Is that what we want to be known for supporting across the globe?
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is if the government allows it, discrimination is now tacitly approved by the government.
Is that the role of government to ensure equal access and opportunity? In my opinion, most definitely. Does it create a loss of freedom for a business? I suppose, but if the loss is the ability to outwardly be bigots, then fine, especially when the business can still be economically viable.
In Chris's defense, I don't think he's being intentionally racist although naive might be the case. I think (admittedly I could be wrong) that his intent is to foster free markets, free of regulation. And his stance is from the idealistic utopia of no-racism therefore racism would not be a factor.
ReplyDeleteAs admirable as this idealistic attitude might be, it's at least naive and at worst dangerous because it doesn't take into account the truth of human nature. And it's not necessarily pretty.
Chris, here's the concern that some people will have with your points.
ReplyDeleteBusiness A decides they don't want to serve blacks and notifies the public that they are discontinuing this service. Business B moves into the area and attempts to serve the blacks but at a diminished capacity due to poor staffing and higher costs. Is that fair?
Now what if business A is the Mayo Hospital and business B is the non-profit clinic. Would you be ok if that was the type of "segmentation" that was occuring?
Or does the constitution guarantee equal treatment for all?
Personally, I believe the constitution guarantees equal treatment for all. And that's why the government has not only the right, but the responsibility to regulate businesses to force them to be fair and unbiased.
That's a protection afforded all of us by the constitution. To say that it hinders free markets implies that the constitution is a hinderance to freedom. Do you really believe that?
I certainly hope that's not the case.
And one last thing, and no offense intended, but you are essentially hosting this blog anonomously. Unless people actually know you from outside of the blog, there is no way to know who you really are from the profile. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteAnon..no offense taken. There is a lot one can discern from my profile and from some of the blog entries about me personally. If there is anything you wonder though, please ask as I will answer the question openly and honestly. I hide nothing. Well except when it comes to the clients I assist as it would be up for them to tell you or anyone else that they do business with me; compliance issues.
ReplyDeleteKevin
ReplyDeleteAs you have noticed my argument is philosophical. I recognize that mortal man is sinful and that free will is his undoing. I also recognize our ability to discern topics is clouded in the darkness the encompasses our inner-light. The fact that a business owner chooses to segment his business is minute compared to greater notion of knowledge.
The role of governmetn is to ensure equal access and opportunity for all; yet if an ignorant person wants to limit their customer base because of particular trait that is something government does not need to ensure. As I have tried to convey, the Free Market is color-blind the only reason we see discrimination within the market is through forces that need to not be there - i.e. government controls and personal bias.
Now I'm confused. If the role of government is to ensure equal access, why the objection to the government not allowing an owner to discriminate? Discrimination doesn't allow equal access.
ReplyDeleteWhat government controls allow and further discrimination?
Why waste time with philosophical arguments about discrimination and the free market when, as you seem to acknowledge, what you hope for in the market doesn't exist? Why not further a real discussion with real solutions?
"The role of governmetn is to ensure equal access and opportunity for all; yet if an ignorant person wants to limit their customer base because of particular trait that is something government does not need to ensure."
ReplyDeleteNO NO NO! The constitution guarantees EQUALITY for all, no where does it say "equal access". If an ignorant person wants to limit their customer base by being racist that's illegal per the equal protections clause as well as the Civil Rights act of 1964, specifically through the Title VII which in effect prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Furthermore, Title II forbid the discrimination by hotels, restaurants etc except for the cases of private clubs.
Therefore, based upon those two things, one of which you claim to support (the constitution) the government not only has the right to legislate and regulate discriminatory behavior, it is REQUIRED to do so.
Again with this "free market is color blind" theory Chris. It's wrong, and it's wrong for the same reason that communism was wrong in theory - because once applied to reality human greed and social stigma's are applied to the actuality of the free market and discrimination not only occurs but is commonplace.
Please step out of the theoretical and into the practical because the theory is making you look quite naive or quite racist here and I would hope that's not your intent.
Toph
ReplyDeleteThis gets a little away from the original conversation on private business rights but Afirmative Action has institutionalized discrimination. While I acknowledge Afirmative Action was needed during last half of the 20th Century but as we move forward into the 21st Century the application become counterproductive.
For one to get accepted into college should always be based on merit and not on race, I don't think anyone will argue that. Unfortunately, during the 20th Century race was a disqualifier for college regardless of merit. As we move into the 21st Century, we have generations of citizens that are further removed from the struggles for Civil Rights. And the younger generations are growing more and more color blind.That being said, which does circle back to private business, people are less racist and more acceptable of the differences between cultures.
This also gets back to my cottage industry argument as well.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteI understand that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does have a couple of Titles that places certain limitations on private business. As we enter into the 21st Century and generations are further and further removed from the Civil Rights movement, do you think that our society has evolved to the point that we do not need government to have these types of laws on the books?
Let me get back to the FDA story I mentioned yesterday. During my business development I have run into a number of people but the one that is applicable here is the meat market client I have. The FDA is doing all it can to ensure that bacteria and tainted meat does not reach the public, which is good, but the trouble is where they are trying to regulate the meat. As this business owner explained to me is the point of inspection is at the meat cutter and not so much at the source of the meat. So, the meat cutter, small business owners, are drowning in red tape, paperwork and regulations when the tainted meat often times comes in that way. Yet the FDA does its inspections at point of sale instead of the source point. Does that make sense?
"As we enter into the 21st Century and generations are further and further removed from the Civil Rights movement, do you think that our society has evolved to the point that we do not need government to have these types of laws on the books?"
ReplyDeleteNO. Do you not think you're being naive to think that racism isn't just as prevalent as it was 50 years ago but is just more hidden? Example, what's your first thought when a mexican and his 5 friends are pulled over on the side of the road for speeding? Do you instantly go to "damn illegals"? Might it surprise you to know that most people likely do think that?
And as to your FDA example, you contend that the FDA does not do inspections at the slaughterhouse? Have you been to the slaughterhouse in St Paul? I actually have, and can tell you that the FDA is an ever-present entity at every stage of the process there. I was actually shocked at how much oversight there was.
But to answer your question, yes, all stages of meat processing should face strong scrutiny. The risk from not having this is continual outbreaks of e-coli and other bacterias.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteI do not think that racism, at least towards blacks, is as prevalent today as it was 50 years ago. Has the racism shifted toward Latino's, yes. Tori Hunter was complaining two years back about the lack of black baseball players and blamed it on the Latino explosion.
Personally, my first thought when a group of Mexican's are pulled over is not "damn illegals". We have a small population of Latino's in Hamburg and I have tried my best to get to know them. As well, my son has several Mexican friends where he goes to school.
To be honest I have not been to the slaughterhouses in St. Paul. The FDA example I was giving was from a perspective of a local business owner and the type of paperwork he is required to do. The point he was making was the regulations are targeted to reduce competition for the big markets as the smaller business owners do not always have the resources to run their business and keep up with paperwork. This does not mean their business are sloppy either; rather the opposite from what I am able to tell.
Your butcher friend has the cause and effect flipped. The regulation isn't there to reduce competition, it's there to ensure safety. A reduction in competition, if actually true, is an unintended consequence.
ReplyDeleteIf he can't compete on the same playing field, required to fill out the same paperwork, isn't that just the market regulating itself?
The market is not regulating itself; rather it is the FDA regulating. This argument is not the same as Wal Mart moving into a small town where mom and pop stores exist.
ReplyDeleteThe FDA is regulating safety not the competition. Do you think the safety should be left up to the slaughter houses and sellers?
ReplyDeleteI go to my local butcher shop at least once a week on average during the summer. Their prices are always better than any larger seller of meat. They've obviously have found a way to deal with any regulations and be competitive.
Food safety needs to be addressed throughout the entire supply chain, which is what happens from the farm, to the slaughter house, to the butcher.
Anon...next time you go into your local meat cutter, as the owner about the FDA, inspections and paperwork. I think his/her answers will suprise you. I do think that we need to safeguard our food supply but there is regulation and over-regulation.
ReplyDeleteAnd if those regulations are the same for everyone, and address safety, it's not a direct attack on competition, it's to ensure safety. If you think there is too much regulation, fine, but as long as everyone is expected to do the same stuff, the regulation isn't attacking competition like you claim.
ReplyDeleteIf he can't compete because of the cost, that's the free market you love. Should there be two standards of regulation?
"I do not think that racism, at least towards blacks, is as prevalent today as it was 50 years ago."
ReplyDeleteReally? You see, I just think people hide their racism better, because they know society officially frowns upon it. But I think, especially in the deep south racism is pervasive and systemic.
As to the FDA. No one likes to have big brother over their shoulder but again, history has proven the necessity of it. To say that because the butcher complains that means that the regulations are heavy handed and unfair is illogical. That's like me saying "I don't like chocolate, therefore chocolate is unfair and heavy handed".
Just because I say it's so, doesn't make it so.
And the last Anon is right. If the butcher can't compete in the same marketplace as the big butcher shops due to the regulations, then that's your free market at work. The big butcher shop filled a niche that the small could not by supplying meat at a requested price. If the small shop goes out of business, he was closed not by regulation because the large and small both have the same regulations. He was closed because of free market forces.
Seems that you're arguing against your base premise that free markets are good.
I agree that the Free Market will force business owners to seek less costly measures to do business but for small business owners, like our meat cutters, the cost of hiring additional staff is not economically viable. I am not advocating two standards; rather the regulations placed upon small business owners will squeeze them out of the market. That is not a Free market force. That is government intervention in the Free Market.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at it this way. The Health Care Mandate is a few years away and small business owners will need to weigh the costs of providing insurance or paying the penalty for not. There is a resason why the current small business owner is not offering insurance; cost. The health care bill, practical or in theory, does nothing to lower costs. Instead it places, questionably an Unconsititutional, mandate that will add costs to small and big businesses alike.
Back to the meat cutter. The reason the big butcher can survive the additional regulation is not because of the ability to offer the product at a lower price; rather turnover of product keeps the big butcher in business over the smaller butcher. The smaller butcher has just one location while the big butcher has ten or more. The additional product turnover allows the big butcher to absorb the cost of regulation easier. Again, government intervention into the Free Market with regulation is not a Free Market force.
It has nothing to do with turnover. Volume yes, profit margin, yes, turnover, no. They could turn their product over in the same period, it's the number of units. You could turnover a million units more, if it's at a loss, it doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyway. So as volume increases, the amount of paperwork and the number of people to do it increases. So the impact of the requirement is the same.
It's the same regulation, it's one for safety, not the market.
So, it seems like you would rather jeopardize the health and lives of consumers, through less regulation of products that can carry deadly diseases, because a small business might be impacted.
The cost of business is the same.
One last thing, if the regulation hurts the small business owner more, why can my small local butcher offer higher quality meat at a lower price then a larger grocery store? Shouldn't his lower "turnover" result in a higher price to absorb the cost of the regulation?
ReplyDeleteAnon
ReplyDeleteIt is all about turnover. Places like meat markets and grocery stores make their money on turning over the inventory quickly and several times. In this case turnover is volume. Plus, I said because margins are lower that more turnover is required to sustain a profit.
The amount of paperwork does not increase with the increase of turnover of product; at least that is not what the butcher I talked to indicated. As I said, go ask your local meat cutter about FDA regulations and inspectors. My bet is that your eyes will be opened a bit wider.
I am not looking for our food supply to be tainted and jeopardize the lives of consumer
Viper, I think I finally figured you out. There's no changing your mind. You're set in your ways, thinking and opinions. You don't seek real dialogue. You seek, and have found, a platform from which you can espouse your twisted views and logic.
ReplyDeleteWhy do I say this? Your meat cutter story. I can only imagine how this meat cutter would have either not been mentioned or perhaps villified if he dared to say that the FDA and governmental regulations were a good thing, that they forced big producers to do some of the se things that he automatically does to provide a quality product to his customers. But since you found a soulmate in this meat cutter, his word is golden. Oh woe is me for I've been blind for so long and not even known it. If only we could spend a few moments at your feet or your meat cutter's feet and learn your wise ways. My eyes would finally be opened! I would see the light!
Government is evil (unless it benefits me)!
Government regulations are unnecessary (unless they protect me)!
The free market will solve all our problems and address all our needs (unless
mine aren't being met then I want government help)!
I, along with my other enlightened colleagues, don't need the government to protect me (unless I change my mind, then I'll look to the government and assail them when they don't do exactly as I wish)!
Anon
ReplyDeleteI do seek real dialogue. Do I always espouse my own personal view? No. As I have stated several times prior, if I see a point of view or slant that is not being explored within the conversation I will attempt to bring it up or defend it. By doing this, at least in my opinion, helps strengthen or enlighten the prominent thought.
All I am saying is go in and ask your local meat cutter about FDA, inspectors and who the regulations are geared toward. I didn't ask my meat cutter about these things to create a good narrative; rather it was through the course of learning about his business that he informed me of some barriers to doing business.
I do not contend that Government is evil. Government does serve a purpose but it is not a cure all. We need a limited Government that ensures the safety of private property, enforces the Constitution, enforces the Laws of the land and allows the citizens to pursue their dreams, freedoms and liberty. Some regulation is needed to make sure that greed does not override the Free Market, that high ethical standards are met, and people are held accountable for errors.
Do I view the world and the issues within from a different, "twisted", angle? Perhaps. I have lived my life with this motto: There is always three sides to the story; yours, mine and the truth.
In my own personal opinion, you're a fraud. You just are. You've proven it through your posts and your comments. I don't buy it that you take on a view to move a conversation forward. It's just not believable. And why would I want to believe someone or listen to what they have to say when they are pretending to have a certain viewpoint. It's a convenient escape from culpability.
ReplyDeleteI think you mis-typed your motto too. It should be: there are always three sides to the story; yours, mine and the truth (which just so happens to be
mine).
How am I fraud? I never claimed expertise, I never claimed to have all the answers, and I have never defended a position that lack a shred of evidence for. Then again, we still live in a free society and you have every right to switch the channel.
ReplyDeleteReally, mis-typed my motto? I did not. I place importance of others opinions, regardless of my point, on the topic ahead of mine. This allows me to understand your point without tainting it with mine. Then after discourse we, together, discover the truth.
To prove you point, give me a topic and the angle from which you'd like me to defend it. I will research it over the weekend and post it on Monday. I have done this challenge before and am not afraid to do it again. I will display my ability to defend a stance that may or may not agree with my own personal view.
"I am not advocating two standards; rather the regulations placed upon small business owners will squeeze them out of the market."
ReplyDeleteThen you ARE advocating 2 standards of regulations because the only other option you're advocating is NO regulations and that means far less safety for us all so I assume you consider food safety a priority and that latter option isn't an option at all.
And it has nothing to do with inventory turnover per se. The big meat producer is leveraging economies of scale in his business model. The cost per pound of meat he produces is far lower because he spreads his relatively stable fixed costs over the higher volume while the smaller meat producer isn't able to do so.
THAT IS FREE MARKET FORCES. If the market demands a price that is X, and vendor A can produce at that price and vendor B cannot, then vendor A is destined to succeed in the free market while vendor B is destined to not succeed. You are arguing against free markets here and you don't even know it I suspect.
"There is a resason why the current small business owner is not offering insurance; cost."
Chris, I worked in health insurance for 8 years or so and I can tell you the main reason that employers don't offer health insurance is their own pocketbook (ie. profits) not that the cost is prohibitive. There are plans that cover the full gambit of possible solutions for employers, from poor man plans to cadillac plans. Even the lowest of employers could offer a poor man's insurance plan, but they don't. Why is that?
To expound on your health insurance example Chris, why does Walmart not offer health insurance to all it's employees? Estimates are that it would impact their product costs by less than $0.01 on average and I suspect most american's would pay that increased cost if they thought it kept other americans off of welfare type health insurance.
ReplyDeleteSo why does Walmart not offer it? Is it cost prohibitive? I think I proved it's not. Is it due to the lack of available programs? Obviously not. So it must therefore be about profits.
So you are for less government intervention to protect corporate profits at the expense of their employees? I somehow doubt this, but yet this is what you've advocated here.
"Then after discourse we, together, discover the truth.". It sounds good in theory, but "the truth" is always your opinion.
ReplyDeleteHere's a topic: the Raiders.
Your position: why the Raiders are the worst franchise in NFL history.
Okay, I was kidding. Kind of.
ReplyDeleteTopic: the rising tensions with North Korea.
Your position: why China is right when it comes to imposing further sanctions on the North. Explain and/ or make a case for why China should continue to appease Kim Jong Il.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteNot looking for two standards nor a complete de-regulation of the markets; rather regulation that is necessary to ensure ethical standards and integrity while allowing for calculated risk and profits.
I know that larger producers of meat benefit from economies of scale, which is a Free Market force, and they are not hampered, from a profit standpoint, from the paperwork, classwork and other fees that go along with regulation and inspections.
As for health care, you are correct it is profit driven as to not offer it. In order to keep or increase profits companies must look to either increase sales or reduce costs. As for Walmart, they have stockholders that expect a certain profit margin and level. To offer a benefit to employees that hinders profit margin does not meet their obligation to stockholders. The ironic thing is that many of us are stockholders of Walmart, and other companies, with out realizing it.
To rail against the Wall Street hits everyone in the pocket book; 401k's.
Anon
ReplyDeleteI like your Raiders deal because, even though I am an avid fan, a argument can be made to the claim that Oakland Raiders is the worst franchise in the NFL recently.
Okay, I will work on the North Korea deal and post it on Monday. Let me clarify something though. My position is Why should China allow Kim Jong Il to ignore sanctions/restrictions impose upon them by the West? Or is my position: Why should China not back Western sanction requests place upon North Korea and allow Kim Jong Il to flex his muscle?