Government shouldn't force people to be fair

[MayorQuimby]

And your complete idiocy have been a great source of entertainment for me. Thanks. It's been a long time since I had an argument with someone as stupid as you. I think the last time was a while back with craponus.

Mmm, tears.

 

[BackAgain]

So does the government. However, whereas you can't compel me to do anything, the government can. And it does. It uses its arbitrary power to force people not to discriminate. This is wrong.

I believe you missed my point.

To rephrase it:

While the government has no valid power to compel anyone to behave in a non-discriminatory (way most of the time), it may have a valid basis to require compliance with anti-discrimination rules when it is awarding contracts.

Company A doesn’t care to hire Asians. And normally it won’t. However, Company A doesn’t care care to take lucrative government contracts. But the government conditions its awarding of contracts to companies which do not engage in racial discrimination in hiring.

Now, if Company A wants that lucrative contract, it has a choice: Continue to be racially discriminatory and forfeit the lucrative contract — OR — cave-in to the government’s condition in order to be eligible for that lucrative contract.

I’m happy if they choose option 2.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you don't want to hire homosexuals, you should be able to do that. And if you can discriminate against homosexuals, then you should also be able to discriminate against a woman or someone of a particular race.

Meritocracy is not about allowing discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation or whatever.

It is about hiring the best qualified for a job even if the person is a white, male Republican.

But there are other subjective subtleties that factor in too:

Will the snooty self-righteous judgmental uber-Christian fit in with the sometimes rough talking, sometimes crude, even profane work force already in place? Or is that just begging for toxicity to be introduced into an otherwise congenial and productive atmosphere?

The most qualified candidate for the job turns out to be tattooed all over with visible body piercings that the boss knows will not go over well with his/her particular clientele. Should the boss have to hire that candidate anyway?

The male boss needs an assistant to often travel with him on overnight trips. Does he hire the extremely qualified beautiful woman that would almost certainly trigger ugly rumors and innuendo, would naturally worry his wife, etc? Or the slightly less qualified guy that would create none of those problems?

Somewhere in there is a happy medium that provides maximum liberty along with maximum quality, efficiency, effectiveness etc. and also common sense.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Meritocracy is not about allowing discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation or whatever.

It is about hiring the best qualified for a job even if the person is a white, male Republican.

But there are other subjective subtleties that factor in too:

Will the snooty self-righteous judgmental uber-Christian fit in with the sometimes rough talking, sometimes crude, even profane work force already in place? Or is that just begging for toxicity to be introduced into an otherwise congenial and productive atmosphere?

The most qualified candidate for the job turns out to be tattooed all over with visible body piercings that the boss knows will not go over well with his/her particular clientele. Should the boss have to hire that candidate anyway?

The male boss needs an assistant to often travel with him on overnight trips. Does he hire the extremely qualified beautiful woman that would almost certainly trigger ugly rumors and innuendo, would naturally worry his wife, etc? Or the slightly less qualified guy that would create none of those problems?

Somewhere in there is a happy medium that provides maximum liberty along with maximum quality, efficiency, effectiveness etc. and also common sense.

Nothing to do with meritocracy. It's about government forcing businesses to do, or in our case, to not do certain things.

If a business owner wants to hire the most incompetent person for a job, that is his right. And the reason for that is because he has, or should have, the freedom to run his business without interference from the government. All that talk about ensuring equality is just the excuse the government uses to intrude into private entities' lives.

 

[MayorQuimby]

I believe you missed my point.

To rephrase it:

While the government has no valid power to compel anyone to behave in a non-discriminatory (way most of the time), it may have a valid basis to require compliance with anti-discrimination rules when it is awarding contracts.

Company A doesn’t care to hire Asians. And normally it won’t. However, Company A doesn’t care care to take lucrative government contracts. But the government conditions its awarding of contracts to companies which do not engage in racial discrimination in hiring.

Now, if Company A wants that lucrative contract, it has a choice: Continue to be racially discriminatory and forfeit the lucrative contract — OR — cave-in to the government’s condition in order to be eligible for that lucrative contract.

I’m happy if they choose option 2.

Government contracts are a slightly different issue, and are not what I am talking about.

Government forces even companies that aren't directly doing business with it to not discriminate. This is wrong.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Government contracts are a slightly different issue, and are not what I am talking about.

Government forces even companies that aren't directly doing business with it to not discriminate. This is wrong.

Why are you so racist? How do you want to discriminate? Fill us all in.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Why are you so racist? How do you want to discriminate? Fill us all in.

I didn't say that I am racist or that being racist is good. Rather, I am saying that government shouldn't force it brand of morality on private entities.

 

[BackAgain]

Government contracts are a slightly different issue, and are not what I am talking about.

But it is what I was talking about.

Government forces even companies that aren't directly doing business with it to not discriminate. This is wrong.

I don’t know that your claim is true.

It might be.

Link?

 

[airplanemechanic]

I didn't say that I am racist or that being racist is good. Rather, I am saying that government shouldn't force it brand of morality on private entities.

How do you want to discriminate? Be specific. You're fighting for your right to discriminate. So tell us what you would do.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Nothing to do with meritocracy. It's about government forcing businesses to do, or in our case, to not do certain things.

If a business owner wants to hire the most incompetent person for a job, that is his right. And the reason for that is because he has, or should have, the freedom to run his business without interference from the government. All that talk about ensuring equality is just the excuse the government uses to intrude into private entities' lives.

So much squirming just to say you don't want to hire women or black people. Come now, be honest.

 

[MayorQuimby]

So much squirming just to say you don't want to hire women or black people. Come now, be honest.

If you are just going to misrepresent my position like that, then I will simply stop responding to you. And I know you want to talk to me.

Btw, I am neither white nor male.

 

[MayorQuimby]

How do you want to discriminate? Be specific. You're fighting for your right to discriminate. So tell us what you would do.

I don't "want to discriminate". I am saying that government shouldn't force people not to discriminate. Sorry that this is too hard for you to grasp.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nothing to do with meritocracy. It's about government forcing businesses to do, or in our case, to not do certain things.

If a business owner wants to hire the most incompetent person for a job, that is his right. And the reason for that is because he has, or should have, the freedom to run his business without interference from the government. All that talk about ensuring equality is just the excuse the government uses to intrude into private entities' lives.

There is that too. But those who strive for excellence will hire the most excellently qualified. Like there are prestige law firms that covet the #1 in the graduating class for new hires and expect those to pass the bar on their first try.

But nevertheless the most imminently qualified is not always the best fit for a particular business and the employer should be able to exercise some judgment in more subjective areas that to him/her are just as important.

So yes, liberty will produce some racist businesses, i.e. black owners who will hire only black employees; white owners who will hire only white employees. But in a society focused on mostly meritocracy, those will be in a distinct minority. But whether private business or in government, nobody deserves to be hired only because the person hired is a woman or black or white or whatever.

 

[MayorQuimby]

There is that too. But those who strive for excellence will hire the most excellently qualified. Like there are prestige law firms that covet the #1 in the graduating class for new hires and expect those to pass the bar on their first try.

But nevertheless the most imminently qualified is not always the best fit for a particular business and the employer should be able to exercise some judgment in more subjective areas that to him/her are just as important.

So yes, liberty will produce some racist businesses, i.e. black owners who will hire only black employees; white owners who will hire only white employees. But in a society focused on mostly meritocracy, those will be in a distinct minority. But whether private business or in government, nobody deserves to be hired only because the person hired is a woman or black or white or whatever.

If a business owner wants to hire the stupidest candidate, should he be allowed to do so? Yes or no.

 

[Zincwarrior]

If a business owner wants to hire the stupidest candidate, should he be allowed to do so? Yes or no.

Is there a government law that says you can't?

 

[MayorQuimby]

Is there a government law that says you can't?

Try answering a question without posing another question.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Try answering a question without posing another question.

Try posing a question worth answering. Or for that matter, a thread worth reading.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Try posing a question worth answering. Or for that matter, a thread worth reading.

Why do you insist on entertaining me.

 

[dblack]

It is none of the government's business if I want to discriminate, for any reason and against anyone.

Yes. The concept is basically ridiculous. Attempting to outlaw discrimination was a desperate attempt to heal the damage done by legal slavery. But bad laws don't fix bad laws.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Yes. The concept is basically ridiculous. Attempting to outlaw discrimination was a desperate attempt to heal the damage done by legal slavery. But bad laws don't fix bad laws.

Another way of putting it is, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because olden-day white people discriminated against black people, it doesn't mean it's now OK to discriminate against present-day white people.