About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 4:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent article, Jason. One minor correction: the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not found anywhere in the US Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 6:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The stakes are high but the rewards are rich.  Live your life by the right principles and achieve the happiness you deserve—by consequence you will show that you are worthy of respect and consideration, not by virtue of being gay but by virtue of being human
 
Great article. In an ideal world we would not need anti-discrimination laws.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 6:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason, once again - a wonderful article. Let us note that Jason could have easily used a different example to make the points of his article (whites, blacks, hispanics, christians, jews, the rich, the poor, the disabled, people with brown eyes...) and the thrust of his argument would still be valid.

Well done!

George


Post 3

Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 1:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason: (Quoting Rand) “Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality—to think, to work and to keep the results —which means: the right to property.”

Presumably, gays and other minorities are also included in those Americans who have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If so, the above quote tells them that they have the right to translate these rights into reality.

But if bigots discriminate against gays in matters such as employment, they are also violating the rights of gays to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, because they are acting to prevent the right of gays to translate their rights into reality. 

So what we have here is a clash of rights – if an employer refuses a job to a gay, he is violating the gay’s right to translate his rights into reality; if legislation forces the employer to hire gays, it violates the employer’s self-same right.

So this matter can’t be decided by an appeal to rights, because the rights in question are the problem, not the solution. It’s a question of whose rights will prevail, and questions of this sort have to be settled by appeal to other considerations.

Brendan


Post 4

Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 8:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But if bigots discriminate against gays in matters such as employment, they are also violating the rights of gays to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, because they are acting to prevent the right of gays to translate their rights into reality.


No, no, no, no, no.

The “right to work” does not entail a “right” to a guaranteed job. Once you are working in the employ of someone else, this becomes an issue not of rights, but of mutual consent by contract. Your employer's business is his property, and he has no obligation to hire anyone. To talk about this as a “conflict” of rights is absurd; there is no “right to be hired.” When your employer is doing the hiring for his company with his money, he has the right to hire or not hire whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants. He can deny someone employment because they don't have the skills required by the work, or because they practice sexual behaviors he doesn't like, or because they listen to headbanging caterwauling. This is entirely at his discretion.

Post 5

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 12:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nature Leseul: “The “right to work” does not entail a “right” to a guaranteed job.”

I’m not arguing for a right to a guaranteed job. I’m questioning whether the quote that heads this article supports discrimination in employment on grounds other than merit. I don’t think it does.

I assume that Rand meant what she said: “…no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality”. If we take as an example the right to work, most working people exercise this right through paid employment. If employers have the right to discriminate on grounds other than merit, they are denying some people the right to translate their rights into reality.

To ensure the latter, there should be no legal impediments in the way of translating one’s rights into reality. Stated positively, everyone should have the opportunity – as of right -- to apply for any job for which they are qualified, and to expect to be treated solely on their merits.

Brendan


Post 6

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 12:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you all for your comments. 

Bob - I appreciate your correction.  Although somewhat of an embarassing one, I think it demonstrates the extent to which Americans view the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and intertwined and supportive of each other.

Kat - Ditto.  Let's hope as the right ideas gain ground, that "ideal world" will be even closer.

Georgie - Right on.  Thanks for pointing this out; it's exactly right.

Nature - Thank you for addressing Brendan's comments. You beat me to it.

And finally, to Brendan, I only need repeat a section of my article which perhaps you overlooked:

"Notice the intentional wording, however (particularly the pursuit of happiness)—rights are inhibitory.  They can not depend on the actions of any person, but only the inaction of others.  “Rights” that depend on others are not rights but privileges.  Therefore, no person can claim the “right” to the effort of others, whether that effort is labor, money (if honestly obtained, a result of effort), or any other property. "

Jason D.

(Edited by Jason Dixon on 2/14, 12:55pm)


Post 7

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stated positively, everyone should have the opportunity – as of right -- to apply for any job for which they are qualified, and to expect to be treated solely on their merits.


All right—what exactly do we define as “merit,” then?

Let's look at the manager of a Hooters. There is a particular experience that he wants his customers to have when they eat at Hooters. The requirements of that experience provide the principles which guide his decisions in establishing his Hooters—including with regard to the wait staff. The Hooters experience requires certain, ah, attributes in the wait staff which some otherwise qualified applicants, such as men, will not possess—although they might be highly qualified qua wait staff. So if he rejects male applicants for wait staff positions regardless of their qualifications qua wait staff, is this a violation of these applicants' “rights” to be treated solely on their merits?

The answer is no—because “merit” is contextual. For the Hooters manager, women have more merit than men for his particular purpose. Trying to speak of merit as a single universal principle will be disastrous. The only person qualified to judge the merit of applicants in the context of the job to which they apply is the person doing the hiring.

Post 8

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan,

I sense something in your position that is on target. Namely, that refusing to hire someone because of an inessential such as sex or sexual orientation is stupid, and bad for the discriminated-against party. It’s morally stupid of the employer.

But law is different. Consider the situation in reverse. You would be stupid to refuse to work for a boss who is polyspecieamorous who offers you high pay, opportunities for career growth, etc. BUT YOU MUST HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO REFUSE, the merits of what he offers aside. His right to translate his business ideas into reality, and the attending requirement for the skills that you possess does not legitimate forcing you to work for him if he gives you the skeevies, irrational as those skeevies might be.

Jon


Post 9

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason: “And finally, to Brendan, I only need repeat a section of my article which perhaps you overlooked: "Notice the intentional wording, however (particularly the pursuit of happiness)—rights are inhibitory.  They can not depend on the actions of any person, but only the inaction of others.”

I noted this passage, but it’s not specifically relevant to discrimination in employment, which is an active process rather than a passive attitude. This sort of discrimination aims to prevent certain people from being hired, and so amounts to a restriction placed on their right to work.

And Rand seems to agree with this interpretation, when she enunciates the principle – “no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality”.

Brendan


Post 10

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nature Leusel: “All right—what exactly do we define as “merit,” then? Let's look at the manager of a Hooters.”

I’m not familiar with this “Hooters”, but I guess from the name and your description that it is an eating establishment served by ladies of certain anatomical proportions, presumably scantily clad. Sounds like fun.

We could argue “merit” until the cows come home, so let’s cut to the chase and say “all other things being equal” job opportunities should be open to all. Obviously, some jobs, such as washroom attendant, will be gender-specific – although not in France, and I understand in some other European countries.

So every generalisation will have its exceptions, but that’s the nature of generalisations – they’re general and can’t be expected to cover every specific. And note I say that job “opportunities” should be open to all (“all other things being equal”). I’m not arguing that applicants should be guaranteed a job.

Brendan


Post 11

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon: “But law is different. Consider the situation in reverse. You would be stupid to refuse to work for a boss who is polyspecieamorous who offers you high pay, opportunities for career growth, etc. BUT YOU MUST HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO REFUSE…”

Hi Jon. I’m having a real education today. I’m not sure what this poly-thing is, but it sounds pretty weird, so I’ll accept your offer that I must have a legal right to refuse to work for this particular boss.

 I think you’ve misunderstood my position. I’m not arguing that an employer must accept a particular person for a job, or vice versa. I’m saying job opportunities should be open to all on merit (“all other things being equal”).

I’m sure we’d agree that the hiring process is often highly subjective. The way I see it, apart from the moral aspect, anti-discrimination laws are a way of bringing a degree of objectivity into the hiring process. I think this is a good thing.

Brendan


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan,

Any attempt by the government to legislate what you can do with your personal property, in this case, someone's company,  is an attack on that persons property. It is an initiation of force just as much as them coming in and taking something physically away. Sure, you can wish that people weren't biased based on whatever personal prejudice they have, but as soon as you attempt to hinder their freedom and force them to into a particular course of action, you are violating their rights. Unless the company or person is violating the rights of another by seizing their property or infringing their freedom, the government should have no right to interfere. Your freedom is not a demand against anyone else's freedom.

Regards,

Ethan


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Brendan,

I understand that you are saying job opportunities must be open to all, not that any particular person must be hired. My example fits—my example does not say that you must work for that particular boss, however, by your logic you are treating him unfairly by removing yourself from the pool he can choose from (you may be the most qualified for the job and he is shit-out-of-luck thanks to your irrational bias against him for his personal life.)

The way out for you is to see that it’s his problem. He will have to find the next most qualified person and hope that that individual doesn’t harbor the same bias against men who love all animals. Likewise, a job applicant will have to find some other open position, offered by individuals who don’t have a bias against whatever it is about you they don’t like.

The point of my example is to show that if you want to force employers to be open to hiring gays, employers who deeply wish not to do so—then you must accept that we can force you to be open to working for a boss you consider disgusting. You can’t wiggle out with the ‘no particular applicant’ line—if you are the most qualified, and he really needs you to start work now, then you must work for him.

Jon


Post 14

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


I’m not familiar with this “Hooters”, but I guess from the name and your description that it is an eating establishment served by ladies of certain anatomical proportions, presumably scantily clad. Sounds like fun.


Pretty much correct. Specifically, the waitresses wear the famous “Hooters girl” outfit as pictured at the right.

Mmm-hmm. Ain't America great? I take it you live in some barbaric land which lacks this sort of high culture.

We could argue “merit” until the cows come home, so let’s cut to the chase and say “all other things being equal” job opportunities should be open to all.


I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say by this. The point I'm trying to make is that different employers are going to have different goals for their businesses. The goal of Hooters is to provide an environment where people can enjoy fine dining while being waited on by people dressed in the above fashion, so for Hooters, “merit” includes looking somewhat like that. For another (hypothetical) business, the goal might include providing an environment where men don't have to worry about being hit on by homosexuals or something, and for that business, “merit” would include heterosexuality (or at least not being too blatant). Sure, some business plans are going to involve unnecessarily excluding some applicants based upon irrational prejudices, but as libertarians we ought to know that such business plans are ultimately non-competitive, ne?

The point is, because everyone's business has different values, there is no way you can write a single law that ensures that applicants are turned down only on the basis of “merit.”

Post 15

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 4:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here are Ayn Rand's views on the subject, I happen to agree with her:

No man, neither Negro nor white, has any claim to the property of another man.  A man's rights are not violated by a private individual's refusal to deal with him.  Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine -- but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law.  Just as we have to protect a communist's freedom of speech, even though his doctrines are evil, so we have to protect a racist's right to the use and disposal of his own property.  Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue -- and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism.

Ayn Rand
(An article published in the September, 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter
and included as a chapter in the book, The Virtue of Selfishness )

(Edited by Pete on 2/15, 4:08pm)


Post 16

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 4:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nature Leseul,

Listen, my vision is somewhat poor, could you please re-post that photo in a larger format?

Also, I could not help but notice she is a brunette, that smacks of un-equal treatment, could you please include examples of a blond and red-head as well? Make sure the new photos afford the same level of 'merit' so as to assure Brendan that that is the sole consideration for your choice of photos.

Along those same lines, I insist that you also include an example of a Black, Hispanic and Asian girl - solely for the sake of 'fairness', I give you my word that is my only agenda. 

Don't forget Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist examples as well. Normally I would ask that you include a large breasted Christian girl as well, but watching Adam Reed go through a religious conversion is more than I could bare.
 
The more examples you can mange to post the stronger your argument will be; I for one, will be won over to your argument completely. 

George




(Edited by George W. Cordero on 2/15, 5:01pm)


Post 17

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George wrote: "Normally I would ask that you include a large breasted Christian girl as well, but watching Adam Reed go through a religious conversion is more than I could bare."

On the contrary, I think that may be fun to see.  Besides, we all know Christian girls are the best looking ones.



Post 18

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Also, I could not help but notice she is a brunette, that smacks of un-equal treatment, could you please include examples of a blond and red-head as well? Make sure the new photos afford the same level of 'merit' so as to assure Brendan that that is the sole consideration for your choice of photos.

Along those same lines, I insist that you also include an example of a Black, Hispanic and Asian girl - solely for the sake of 'fairness', I give you my word that is my only agenda.


You will probably find a more thorough treatment of the subject through examination of the academic source I used for the initial image.

Unfortunately, I can't vouch for the egalitarianism of that source. There are certainly plenty of blondes in evidence to counter the brunettes, and I think there may be at least one Asian sample on the first page, but beyond that I can't say. (And information about the religious affiliation of the samples is sorely lacking.)

Post 19

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 8:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan, you need to be more careful with your choice of words.
This sort of discrimination aims to prevent certain people from being hired, and so amounts to a restriction placed on their right to work.
No. A correct statement would be: "This sort of discrimination aims to avoid hiring certain people." The hiring or not hiring by the discriminator is irrelevant to anyone's right to work.
The way I see it, apart from the moral aspect, anti-discrimination laws are a way of bringing a degree of objectivity into the hiring process. I think this is a good thing.
Such laws are an attempt by some people to force objectivity by other people. That is not a good thing.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.