RoR: Forum

Post 40

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 12:04pm

Link

Edit

Sarah-
It boils down to whether or not you believe an individual has the right to his own property. Ignorance and discrimination is abhorrent, but no amount of sob stories and indignation can dance around the very simple fact, that the only alternative is to deny an individuals right to his property. If you can own your property, but the government dictates what you can/can't do with it, this is called fascism.

Post 41

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 12:19pm

Link

Edit

Robert D. wrote (#1):

When a stock goes 'public', no one should have the right to knowledge that other holders of the stock are not privy to.

Jody replied (#38):

That is tantamount to saying that if you live in public housing(i.e. apartments or condos) you have to wait until all parties are warned about the fire before you begin your egress.

That is a poor analogy. The issue is property rights between inside and outside owners. Both own the same stock (property). The difference is that the former are involved in the daily operations, but the latter are not. But using the analogy, the analog to insider trading would be a building where the fire alarm sounds at different times. The privileged residents are warned earlier.

Post 42

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 12:53pm

Link

Edit

Martha isn�t blameless. She can be blamed for lying about the fraud her friend the CEO committed. She could have avoided ever being asked about that fraud by never acting on the information that she came to possess through his fraud.

Post 43

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 1:20pm

Link

Edit

Let's get this straight - Martha did NOT go to jail for insider trading!!! She went to jail for telling the feds to 'bugger off', thereby supposedly 'obstructing justice' - since she did not tell them, she therefore 'lied'. BUT - unless that is under oath and thus perjury, there is no law that says you cannot tell the government officials to 'kiss their own ass'.

Post 44

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 1:34pm

Link

Edit

I don�t think that is quite right, Robert. She didn�t zip up, she spoke to investigators and told lies.

Post 45

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 1:37pm

Link

Edit

It boils down to whether or not you believe an individual has the right to his own property.

Do you think discrimination only applies to jobs? Look at it this way: what if there were a group of people who were turned down for everything by everyone? I'm talking grocery stores, medical services, police protection, etc. In your perfectly free society, if the near absolute majority holds prejudices against that group, there is no way for that group to survive within that society.

I know, there're no grounds, no rights, by which you can say this is politically wrong. It's the individual's choice and they're no positive requirements on individuals to help others. In such a situation, those extreme minority individuals are at the mercy of their neighbors. If I recall, that's the same outcome that's predicted if we allow collectivist government control, correct?

I find Objectivist views on this matter very disturbing. It shows a marked lack of respect for true individuality by letting herd mentality, albeit in a free market setting, to, at best, enslave or, at worst, kill another person. I will not stand for such a thing. I support anti-discrimination laws.

Still damn pissed,
Sarah

P.S. Such a group exists. They're called transsexuals. (Or rather, less than a decade ago the situation was like this, but through anti-discrimination laws things have changed... barely.)

Post 46

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 2:37pm

Link

Edit

Sarah wrote:

Do you think discrimination only applies to jobs?

Of course not. Why would you ask such a question?

Look at it this way: what if there were a group of people who were turned down for everything by everyone?

Does everyone include you? If not you then are you claiming to be the only person not included?

paraphrase: I may disagree with whom you choose not to associate, but I will fight to the death your right to choose your associates.

Anti-discrimination laws have no place in a rights respecting society.

Post 47

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 2:39pm

Link

Edit

Sarah I know I invite another deluge - so my aplogies in advance - I'll make you a pot of tea to replenish ;-)
it doesn't matter whether they discriminate against me on their right to refuse or simply because they fuck up or cheat on me (as happens far more often in our real world) - the result is the same: I have to provide for myself - by my own ressources - for just about all the situations you mentioned - and yes it can be done - for all of them ...
I can even go down your 'slippery slope' to the logical conclusion of my argument: if this discrimination goes so far that life-support in itself is no longer possible (which is quite likely to happen with 6.5 billion people and growing, ressources are running out fast even for basic life-support like food, water, air) - then the choice for me would be not to live in such a world any longer - what is there to be gained, produced, achieved - what can I create in a world where every breath I take kills another individual who depended on that air for life?
as for the PS - that bare minimal change was not effected by anti-discrimiation laws - if I remember correctly the caveat still is: ill enough to require treatment - sane enough to allow treatment

Post 48

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 2:41pm

Link

Edit

Martha did not tell lies. Her mistake was in answering the first question from Federal investigators. She clammed up too late.

Also, she made a convenient scapegoat for the Feds to demonstrate their power to prosecute anyone they want to. Such convictions look good on a DA's resume.

Post 49

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 2:46pm

Link

Edit

When someone, anyone, sells a stock it is a signal to the market that that person thinks his money would be better invested elsewhere. It that person is an "insider" then "outsiders" can very well make their own decisions about relating those two facts.

Buying and selling are how markets disperse information.

Post 50

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 2:49pm

Link

Edit

I'll just weigh in with a couple of comments here.

Sarah: "The fact is, without threat of punishment a lot of people won't change their practices, a la postbellum black rights."

Southern blacks were still *legally* discriminated against after the Civil War (a la Jim Crow laws). Laws prevented blacks from patronizing many establishments or integrating with whites in certain contexts. No Objectivist supports forced discrimination. We just don't support forced association either.

Sarah: "Oh, and I'm not supporting quotas, just laws that give the ability to take legal action in the case of discrimination."

That's how you get quotas. When the government grants certain individuals the ability to take coercive action against firms on the basis of discrimination, firms start setting aside a specific number of spots for minorities to make themselves "discrimination proof." Then the non-minority applicants who are more deserving of those positions get hurt.

Sarah: "And right now I'm so infuriated I can't think straight about much at all, so I'm going to take a break. Maybe I'll come back to the issue, if I decide to participate in RoR at all anymore."

If that's your attitude in response to reasonable comments made in a nonhostile manner, I for one don't care if you go. Frankly, that's the overly emotional reaction I'd expect from most of the rabid social activists who propose to fight discrimination, poverty, or anything else by threatening other people.

Post 51

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 3:17pm

Link

Edit

Rick Pasotta wrote:

When someone, anyone, sells a stock it is a signal to the market that that person thinks his money would be better invested elsewhere. It that person is an "insider" then "outsiders" can very well make their own decisions about relating those two facts.

While often true, it's often false. The seller may have other motives -- buy a car, buy a house, pay some large expenses, living expenses for a retiree, liquidate an inheritance, exercise employee stock options, etc. There is a built-in bias for an insider-employee exercising stock options to sell rather than take the stock. If he/she sells, there is no cash outlay, and the employee receives cash equal to the stock price minus the exercise price (times number of shares). On the other hand, if he/she exercises to buy and hold the stock, there is a cash outlay equal to the exercise price (times number of shares), which can be large.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 1/25, 3:29pm)

Post 52

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 3:26pm

Link

Edit

Do you think discrimination only applies to jobs? Look at it this way: what if there were a group of people who were turned down for everything by everyone? I'm talking grocery stores, medical services, police protection, etc. In your perfectly free society, if the near absolute majority holds prejudices against that group, there is no way for that group to survive within that society

The only way something like that can happen on an absolute scale is to involve the law.

I'm personally against anti-discrimination laws beacuse they give the people forced to abide by them an unearned benefit. If an employer is stupid enough to turn down a higher earning employee over a superficial factor he DESERVES TO LOOSE THE MONEY! And he deserves to loose the business from any other members of the group he discriminates against (and any people sympathetic to that group). In todays society no one could get by with that type of behavior for long (except in certain areas where people shared predjudicial values and people who fit the disliked group cold know ahead of time to avoid the area).

Predjudice will always exist and involving the law only makes it worse.

---Landon

Post 53

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 3:52pm

Link

Edit

If that's your attitude in response to reasonable comments made in a nonhostile manner, I for one don't care if you go. Frankly, that's the overly emotional reaction I'd expect from most of the rabid social activists who propose to fight discrimination, poverty, or anything else by threatening other people.

Sorry for having emotions. I won't be bothering anyone around here with them anymore.

Post 54

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 4:17pm

Link

Edit

Sarah-
You are asking the government to control the use of private property, in order to try and prevent an absurd hypothetical. As Rand has pointed out, even if you look back to the days of slavery, it was the capitalistic North which saw the value of trading with all individuals, resulting in greater freedoms and prosperity for blacks. It was the agrarian South that did not wish to relinquish slavery.

Post 55

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 4:40pm

Link

Edit

The seller may have other motives -- buy a car, buy a house, pay some large expenses, living expenses for a retiree, liquidate an inheritance, exercise employee stock options, etc.

What do you think investing in other uses means, if not prefering putting the money elsewhere - and they ARE putting the money elsewhere[ 'buy a car, buy a house,' etc.], 'investing' as it were!!!

Post 56

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 4:44pm

Link

Edit

Sarah, I think you are very intelligent and you usually have something interesting to say but I think that for the purposes of this conversation you need to spell out what it is you are so angry about. You usually provide reasoned arguments. In this thread I feel like I am interacting with some angry brainwashed sociology major from the local university feminist club (I've done that before, so I know what it is like). Several of us have provided cleanly reasoned arguments. What makes you angry with us and what are your reasons for disagreeing?

"I find Objectivist views on this matter very disturbing. It shows a marked lack of respect for true individuality by letting herd mentality, albeit in a free market setting, to, at best, enslave or, at worst, kill another person. "

You know very well that we're not anarchists and that we are in favor of government intervention in cases of enslavement, violent action or murder. This is not a legitimate argument against our position.

- Jason

Post 57

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 4:50pm

Link

Edit

life-support in itself is no longer possible (which is quite likely to happen with 6.5 billion people and growing, ressources are running out fast even for basic life-support like food, water, air)

What eco-freak comic book you've been reading lately?

There are SO many great books refuting this absurd scenario that am SO surprised to see it mentioned here, indeed ESPECIALLY here...

Post 58

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 5:04pm

Link

Edit

Laure,

It is infuriating that someone can misrepresent Rand so hugely...Where do they get this bullshit?

Fear. The shear, witless terror scum must experience when the sun comes out to bake it. Rejoice - our enemies are so afraid, they resort to crude lies.

Vera,

I can understand and fully sympathize with your frustration and anger at the rampant discrimination going on in this zoo, but governments, laws, courts, police, army, have failed miserably

Well Said! Washington said well also,

�Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.�

To know the nature of government is to know its merely gang-warfare at worst, and teenage girls voting on miss-popular at best. There is no way you'll get justice, fairness and meritocracy from people that neither value, believe in, or are even capable of understanding it.

Where were the federal feminists Democrats when Clinton was trading Monica favors for sex? Where is Newt Gingrich and his repug gangsters clamoring for small, frugal government, now that their goons have the purse?

Scott

Post 59

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 5:07pm

Link

Edit

Sarah, whether or not you read this here is an effective refutation of anti-discrimination laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_C._J._Walker

---Landon