I find nothing wrong with this paragraph, except of course that I was talking about the Reconstruction period. Jim Crow laws marked the ending of the Reconstruction period. I know it makes your argument easier by pretending the government you look to solve the problem didn't help strengthen, and in the case of slavery allow the creation of, the problem in the first place but we know that's not the case. Also there's the part where you keep trying to say I don't understand what went on in this period simply because I state that government intervention lengthened the time it took for black people to achieve a more equitable position, where your claim is that government intervention shortened that length of time. Never once did I say they had the same access or resources, just that when they were beginning to move to improve their position and build their wealth, that's when people resorted to the truncheon of government to stop them and that stunted their opportunity. To listen to your argument you seem to think that these bad laws had no effect on black people at all, that they were no hindrance whatsoever and that black people would not have improved their position at all on their own in the absence of these laws. Of course we both know that doesn't make any sense because then why would you put so much value on the removal of those same laws?Your first paragraph on the Jim Crow period indicates a lack of understanding of the history of civil rights during that period. The main factor was that blacks did not have access to the same services and markets as whites--that much we agree upon. But, this restriction was first put into place by people, not by law; all laws served to do was facilitate people running their businesses how they wished. In other words, there weren't laws prohibiting service to blacks; there were laws allowing you to refuse to serve blacks in the first place, though.
See above. Though I can't imagine why you think people wouldn't have started treating black people better without a law forcing them to do so. To listen to you talk you'd think that if the laws were removed tomorrow (as they very well could be) you'd think people would instantly go back to being the way they were.This didn't change, and it wouldn't have changed, unless there was a measure of force to stop this. Frankly, I don't have a single problem if you're uncomfortable with that force, since (a) you conflate "force" with "rule of law", and (b) I know full well that had it not been for it, I wouldn't have had any of the opportunities available to me over the course of my life. In other words, the alternative to simply letting things be would be to allow a culture of discrimination to perpetuate and prevent non-whites from ever participating on equal footing in society or the marketplace. It was these laws which allowed discriminatory businesses to be marginalized, not free market forces.
Wow, you totally missed the point on that one. So tell me, how many laws does Washington pass each year? Could you tell me what percentage of those aren't put in place by one group of people looking to improve their position at the expense of another group of people? Do you think you're going to come out of that change unscathed? Considering currently, legally, all they have to do is called you an "Enemy combatant" and you disappear off the face of the earth? How many unintended side effects do you think these regulations you talk about cause? How many employers do you think don't promote or hire a minority not because of discrimination, but they're worried about the liability if something could go wrong?Actually, no. The alternative is what occurs now: minorities enjoy certain protections from hiring and promotion practices based on discrimination, and from the denial of services also based on discrimination. When you're in a position where you'd be screwed otherwise, you tend to be thankful that such protections exist (particularly when you're the member of a group that most people would either ignore or, worse, support discrimination against). There are examples in other democratic countries where people do not enjoy the level of protection we do in the US that, coupled with the fact that discrimination does exist in this country as well, that lead me to believe I would be screwed otherwise.
Missing the point again. (And I've given you reams and reams of methods that pressure could come from, how much do you want from here?) That paragraph was in response to when you asked me.. "You seem to forget that a business is made up of many individuals. Without the EEOC, a hiring manager with prejudices against certain groups can simply "overlook" my application due to my race/religion (those are apparent from my name) without me having any recourse." I was pointing out to you that, assuming, a company's policy was to not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or religion, how could you, Kizzy, be protected from that discrimination without the EEOC to protect you. Never once did I tell you that the power to hire you would be taken away from that company. Never once did I tell you that if said company wanted to discriminate against you they couldn't. I would never suggest that the prospective hiring company should be forced to turn over wages in exchange for your labor if they did not want to, even if I think the reason for not wanting to is backwards. Just earlier I told you, if a business is actively discriminating, and they can stay in business despite that, then they would remain in business. You remember that right? The people spending money at that business help decide that it stays in business by willingly exchanging their property with business in exchange for property or services?It doesn't work. Companies that actively discriminate do not get noticed the way you seem to believe they will, and that kind of pressure (from what, boycotts? ad campaigns?) isn't something that everyone is in a position to apply. Without the law on my side, the power is entirely in my company's hands: they can threaten to fire me, deny me a promotion, or whatever. With the law, the power is even: I can demand accommodation, but it must be reasonable. They also have better lawyers, so it'd better be a good reason I'm demanding accommodation for. (Now, my company and manager are pretty good with this, so while it doesn't come up for me, there are a lot of folks I know in other professions, particularly blue-collar work, where it does come up as a point of contention.)
Also I'd remind you that currently, if a company wants you gone, they're going to find a way to boot you out the door, EEOC or not. The only thing you're being protected from is something very blatant and obvious. Also remember at the same time while you're "enjoying" these protections you're creating unintended consequences which are harming the very people you're trying to protect.
My definition of force is not different from the norm. When you write a law you are saying that the people within an area must do, or not do, X or those people will be forced to face Y consequence, and in the case of resistance to accepting Y consequence we will use the armed force of the police to enforce it. That's force, it's a fact. You can't say you need force to accomplish your goals in the top of your post and then tell me at the bottom of your post it's not force. (And I quote, "This didn't change, and it wouldn't have changed, unless there was a measure of force to stop this.") The difference is that you think that force is justified, and therefore ethical, where as I'm telling you force is only justified, and therefore ethical, in the protection of life, liberty, and property. I don't think force is justified in forcing someone to exchange their wealth for your labor if they don't want to. It's the same as how I don't believe it's justified in using force to kill people half a world away who aren't threatening our life, liberty, or property, using it in people who want to imbibe harmful substances into their bodies of their own will, (still not threatening our life, liberty, or property) or using it to build a new park down at the end of my street, even if I really really want one. (Again, the absence of the park is not threatening our life, liberty, or property.)As for the last line, first your definition of "ethical", like your definition of "force", is very different from the norm, since most people wouldn't consider "law" to be prima facie unethical. Second, there are no other effective ways to just take care of this through the free market--and the smaller the minority group (and more acceptable discrimination is against them), the less power said group has to do anything.
As for your second statement, I can't really imagine what would lead you to say that, since you repeatedly claim to be student of a field of study which demonstrates how a free market solves problems well and efficiently. I guess I should be glad my economy professors didn't think the way you do.
Trying to poke holes in my position doesn't answer the question. Proving another side wrong doesn't make your side right, because there aren't just two answers to the question. The question that was asked was: Let us suppose that all of the programs you suggested where genuinely good ones. If they are so beneficial, they why are you unable to convince other people to fund them voluntarily? Why do you need to force people to fund then? Does not the fact that you need to force people to fund them bother you?The optimism you have for the unbridled free market works within a framework that assumes (a) every market is competitive, (b) every person behaves in rational self-interest, and (c) every person has perfect access to information. Because those three things don't hold in the real world (that is, the real world beyond the idealized one taught in introductory economics courses), we need laws and taxes--which I'm not going to conflate with force--to support some of the things which are beneficial, yet would not arise in a pure free market, or would be horribly inefficient in a pure free market.
You've still failed to explain why you can't get people to fund these programs voluntarily. Also, (a) the definition of a free-market is that there is competition. Current markets are not free largely because government is used as a tool to make the markets this way and to manipulate the market for personal gain. (B) I would never assume every person behaves in rational self interest. That has nothing to do with it. (C) I wouldn't assume this either. However, providing information has been a healthy industry ever since the printing press was invented. If I consider the current access to information acceptable, why would I have reason to believe that information access would get worse in a free-market situation rather than improve?
Oh and once again, none of that has anything to do with the question I asked you. Though I would hazard to guess the reason you choose this route is because you know it's impossible to fund your program voluntarily, and you refuse to accept solutions that are voluntary because you don't want those solutions, you want the solution that makes it so that "the power is on my side". I mean, don't get me wrong, I see why that idea is attractive to you. If you forget everything that goes along with it and the fact that it doesn't actually work and that you're going to constantly have to fight over the object of power it's a pretty attractive notion.
Very cute of you to take my humble admission that I have limits and that my specialty in this location falls short. You and I both know I that when I made that statement I would have had specific people in mind, not you, who I suspect hasn't really thought this issue through all the way. Also, I doubt that, and even if it were not possible I doubt the preferable alternative would be what we have now, where we hurtle along as far away from a free market as fast as we can, determining who fails and who succeeds by who has more friends in Washington.I've already stated that I am an economist, so I'd fall into that "someone better educated" label. And, once you get into real world applications, beyond the theoretical constructs of an introductory class, you find that using only the free market framework is rarely realistic. It's like the difference between learning regular Latin verb conjugations and actually speaking the language.
Have you seen me quote Ayn Rand yet? Though I've heard some about her ideas I haven't heard the whole thing so I can't say where the sticking points would be. Currently I'm working my way through Mary Ruwart's book, then I'm hoping to find some time to read some of Harry Browne's books. Do you want to complain about their credentials too? And no offense Kizzy, but reading what you write, you sound like a pretty -Dragon Diamond- economist yourself. See? I can do it too. ;pIt does bear repeating that Ayn Rand was a -Dragon Diamond- economist. Reading her thoughts on how the free market works is like a physician talking to a faith healer about curing cancer.
This is correct, though I never stated the free market could solve everything, just that given the reality we live in it's the best solution and is the natural state of a free society. I mean, heck, if you don't care about liberty you can be awfully safe and secure under tyranny, well until it becomes corrupt and no one wants to produce because there's no profit in it for themselves so you starve, but you know, until then it's pretty safe.So that's that. To recap once more, we disagree on about three fundamental things, namely whether or not law is equivalent to forcing people at gunpoint (or similarly if taxation is theft, though that didn't come up here), whether or not the free market can solve everything, and how much reality reflects those beliefs. Everything else here is an extension.
Anyway though, you're right, we've pretty much exhausted this discussion and now it's just making people upset (And I'm sure the picture I'm posting below won't help either.) so it's probably a good idea to stop. It probably would have been better to stop earlier, but I find listening to conflicting view points and discussing them to be terribly interesting. Though usually when I'm having this sort of discussion with close personal friends, and I do, it usually doesn't get this heated.
@Meg
