America's Next Revolution (the fourth) -

[Polish_Silver]

The death of freedom

"What boils my blood – and that of at least sixty million other adult Americans – is the idea that a bakery in Oregon owned by Christians that gladly serve homosexual customers in their place of business can be destroyed by government power because they refused to cater a wedding cake for two sodomites since they saw it as participating in a ceremony prohibited by their religious faith. . . .

I'm waiting to see what happens when a Mosque refuses to do a gay wedding or a Muslim baker refuses to cater it.

When I was growing up I sometimes saw signs in merchants shops saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason". Sadly, those are all gone now. I don't think the government should require people to be "fair" in their business dealings. It takes away too much freedom. It is also a legal can of worms determining what constitutes "fair". Also, it gives the government a huge amount of authority in areas it should not have. If the dog walker had said,
"I don't like your dog, I think he'll bite me", then no controversy, even if that was the safest dog on the planet. Laws should punish or permit behavior, not the reasons for it or the world view behind it.

Freedom does not mean good behavior. It means you can do what you want, except for certain restrictions needed to protect other people from bodily harm and property damage. I do not include fairness or "emotional harm" in that, because I do not think the law should force "fair" behavior on people or protect emotions.

I do not think businessmen are obligated to do cooperate with everyone who offers to to do business with them. I think they have the right to refuse anyone, for any reason. (There are exceptions, such as those operating state licensed cartels. )

Should freedom only be allowed where it affects no one?

[dcarrigg]

Re: The death of freedom

When I was growing up I sometimes saw signs in merchants shops saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason". Sadly, those are all gone now. I don't think the government should require people to be "fair" in their business dealings. It takes away too much freedom. It is also a legal can of worms determining what constitutes "fair". Also, it gives the government a huge amount of authority in areas it should not have. If the dog walker had said,
"I don't like your dog, I think he'll bite me", then no controversy, even if that was the safest dog on the planet. Laws should punish or permit behavior, not the reasons for it or the world view behind it.

Freedom does not mean good behavior. It means you can do what you want, except for certain restrictions needed to protect other people from bodily harm and property damage. I do not include fairness or "emotional harm" in that, because I do not think the law should force "fair" behavior on people or protect emotions.

I do not think businessmen are obligated to do cooperate with everyone who offers to to do business with them. I think they have the right to refuse anyone, for any reason. (There are exceptions, such as those operating state licensed cartels. )

Should freedom only be allowed where it affects no one?

How can freedom include excluding people from the market?

What if the head of the New York Stock Exchange decided to ban any broker working there from allowing Catholics to trade stocks for any reason?

What if the NASDAQ decided to ban Hindus?

This isn't absurd. NYSE's a business. By your reckoning, they should have the right to ban whomever they want, right?

What about conglomerate owners. What if Warren Buffet decides to ban blacks from all his properties? What if Alice Walton decides it? Now, because one person is prejudiced, millions of people are locked out of millions of stores all over the US?

Ceberus Capital is the largest owner of supermarkets in the US. They own tens of thousands. What if Steve Feinberg decides to ban blondes and blue eyeds?

Should Harvard and Yale be allowed to go back to banning Jews? They did this until not too long ago...

Should Waffle House be allowed to go "white's only?"

Should be just bring back these old signs?



Because I tell you what. That doesn't look like freedom to me.

Maybe it's because I'd be the one getting shut out in this case.

Regardless, you can't be both a fan of "free markets" and one who believes in market discrimination as a "freedom."

Either the markets are free and anyone can enter and compete, or the owner of the market can rig the game and tilt the playing field however he likes.

But segregation is not freedom. It's just not. Nor is a world where a business owner has license to trample on every employee and customer and demean and dehumanize them and force them to conform to the owner's wishes while completely disregarding theirs will a world full of "freedom."

There's a reason employees have rights. There's a reason tenants have rights. There's a reason the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Hundreds of years of fighting and struggle went into making a world where anyone with money can walk into any store and buy whatever they want.

And you want to undo that?

For what?

What do we gain?

Who benefits?

Because the last guy I remember using the word 'freedom' like this was George Wallace. He too was fighting to undo Civil Rights. What was his motto again? Something like, "Segregation today, Segregation tomorrow, Segregation forever!" wasn't it? He made all the same arguments about freedom. How free we'd all be if we just let the 'free market' segregate people. Of course, I don't remember too many dark-skinned folk being excited about the kind of freedom Wallace was talking about for some reason. I wonder why that might be?

[Woodsman]

Re: The death of freedom

...Hundreds of years of fighting and struggle ... And you want to undo that? For what? What do we gain? Who benefits?...

So many people longing for the "good old days," even the ones who weren't there to miss them. I know it must be a real bummer not being able to kick around folks like it used to be, but it's just not how we do business here since 1964. And simply because some retrograde elements put up a silly sign doesn't mean anyone need give it the slightest heed.

"And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply"

"Signs." Five Man Electrical Band

And folks wonder why I call it the United States of Amnesia.

A business owner may think their property rights include the right to refuse service to anyone, but it doesn't. Sorry about that. And for those who remain confused, it might help if you think of your business as bunch of sticks. Just a bunch of nice, straight sticks all wrapped up in a tight bundle, maybe with an axe blade sticking out of the top for decoration.

Now you bought them and they're all yours, only lots of other people still have a claim to them. Your neighbors get a stick to enforce covenants. And the government gets to keep sticks for zoning, taxes and anti-discrimination. Now if you had rights to all the sticks, then you could refuse service. Thing is you don't. The bigots lost that argument in 1964.

Jack Kennedy first proposed prohibiting business from discriminating on the basis of race in the summer of 1963 and after he was murdered in the fall, LBJ and Congress took up the task. The people demanded change and petitioned their representatives. The papers printed stories, the talking heads talked, the congress debated, and everybody had a chance to make their views on the question known. Finally Congress voted on the question "does the owner of private property devoted to a public accommodation enjoy the right to refuse to deal with a member of the public because of that person's race, religion and national origin." Their answer was no, they have no such right. And since then those protections have been expanded to cover the disabled. Some states added more protections, like discrimination based on sexual orientation. Some even have provisions for manners of dress (go California!).

Bigots and racists in the GOP and Tea Party can hoop and holler all they want against "liburuls" like Kennedy and Johnson for forcing them to serve people they hate. But their argument is with the Founders as it was their idea to base our laws on the English Common law tradition. Accordingly, anyone using private property for commercial gain by offering goods and services to the public accepts the commitment of the government to protect their rights to enjoy the benefits of said private property. Along with the benefits of a court system, police, fire department, sanitation, public health, roads, post, monetary system etcetera, they also agree to obey the laws of the land even if it means they have to serve people they hate. You can't have it both ways. If you want the state to protect you, you must accept the protection the state offers to others.

We hold these truths to be self-evident - don't want to serve the public, don't open a such business.

[vt]

Re: The death of freedom


Thanks for reminding us that a few Republicans are racists. But so are some Democrats:

"You may recall that when MSNBC was commemorating the 50th anniversary of segregationist George Wallace’s “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” stunt to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama, the network identified Wallace as “R., Alabama.”

Don't forget Lester Maddox was a Democrat too.


You are happy to bring up the race card to characterize any conservative:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egTyaIAaqz8


We are still striving to take racism out of our history:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/us...amed.html?_r=0


But let's finish the job:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...aces-of-honor/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ry-mona-charen


Please remember your stint with "southern strategy" Richard Nixon. At the same time I was one of the "long haired freaky people" working with poor blacks as a Vista Volunteer.

[Polish_Silver]

The limits of freedom

How can freedom include excluding people from the market?

That is a deep question.

My answer is that freedom means that you can do what you want with your own property, including
excluding others. Freedom does not imply socially optimal decisions. It just means individuals have a wide
latitude in their decisions.

I think you are saying that there should be limits to freedom , including some restraints on economic uses of personal property.

If the question is articulated properly, and the restraints stated in some rational manner, then I think it is a very important question.

But I think the loss of freedom should be clearly acknowledged, and I see very little attention paid to that.

And the government's power to force "fairness" on people must have definite limits, otherwise it can become totalitarian. Is the fairness requirement limited to economic transactions? What about personal relationships? What about a situation, such as marriage, which combines personal and economic factors?

Would fairness apply to personalities? A small company might not hire me because they dislike my sense of humor. Do they have to prove that my sense of humor would harm their business to avoid a law suit from me ?

In general, human interactions are not purely personal or purely business, but a mixture.
So if the government does regulating economic issues to a high degree, it is also regulating personal things to.

What if the head of the New York Stock Exchange decided to ban any broker working there from allowing Catholics to trade stocks for any reason?

. . .. By your reckoning, they should have the right to ban whomever they want, right?

yes. A "free" country is not the same as a "fair" country. If I am free, I have the freedom to be unfair.

Freedom is a paradoxical idea, in that if you maximize one kind of freedom, you reduce another kind. What ever laws we come up with, we should at least
be clear on what we are gaining and losing.

Corporations are legal constructs and have to abide by those laws. In recent decades, there are laws requiring fair employment practices.

Prior to that, corporations could (and did) legally discriminate. And so did the military and civilian government. Even with all the laws, they do many things I

would consider unfair. I just do not think it's the government's job to keep everything "fair".

In general, corporations would become less competitive by irrational exclusions, yet for many years, both the government and corporations

practiced irrational exclusions, because such was the social norm. It was the general drift of society that improved things, much more

than legal actions taken against those who were unfair.

Regardless, you can't be both a fan of "free markets" and one who believes in market discrimination as a "freedom."

Either the markets are free and anyone can enter and compete, or the owner of the market can rig the game and tilt the playing field however he likes.

Personal freedom is in important value to me, and I think it should be protected by the government, subject to limits such as we are discussing. Sure, in some cases that freedom would work against what is understood as " a free market". "freedom" does not maximize economic efficiency.

In reality, people and corporations make decisions with a degree of freedom and a degree of legal constraints. It's the question of what those constraints should be. If the government forces "fairness" in all aspects of life, there will be no freedom left. At all.

[Polish_Silver]

Freedom and limits

. . . . Finally Congress voted on the question "does the owner of private property devoted to a public accommodation enjoy the right to refuse to deal with a member of the public because of that person's race, religion and national origin." Their answer was no, they have no such right. .. . . . . .

That is the whole question. In the cases you mention, the government promoted fairness and social well being at the expense of private property freedom.

On balance, I have to admit it was the right thing to do. But I think the loss of freedom is something that needs careful consideration.

Irrational discrimination is not a very meaningful freedom , nor is riding a motorcycle without a helmet, nor refusing vaccines for a child in school.

But I think we should take the loss of freedom into account in all these discussions. Some people care mightily about freedoms that seem just silly to me.

I should not casually remove those freedoms.

[dcarrigg]

Re: The limits of freedom

That is a deep question.

My answer is that freedom means that you can do what you want with your own property, including
excluding others. Freedom does not imply socially optimal decisions. It just means individuals have a wide
latitude in their decisions.

I think you are saying that there should be limits to freedom , including some restraints on economic uses of personal property.

If the question is articulated properly, and the restraints stated in some rational manner, then I think it is a very important question.

But I think the loss of freedom should be clearly acknowledged, and I see very little attention paid to that.

And the government's power to force "fairness" on people must have definite limits, otherwise it can become totalitarian. Is the fairness requirement limited to economic transactions? What about personal relationships? What about a situation, such as marriage, which combines personal and economic factors?

Would fairness apply to personalities? A small company might not hire me because they dislike my sense of humor. Do they have to prove that my sense of humor would harm their business to avoid a law suit from me ?

In general, human interactions are not purely personal or purely business, but a mixture.
So if the government does regulating economic issues to a high degree, it is also regulating personal things to.




yes. A "free" country is not the same as a "fair" country. If I am free, I have the freedom to be unfair.

Freedom is a paradoxical idea, in that if you maximize one kind of freedom, you reduce another kind. What ever laws we come up with, we should at least
be clear on what we are gaining and losing.

Corporations are legal constructs and have to abide by those laws. In recent decades, there are laws requiring fair employment practices.

Prior to that, corporations could (and did) legally discriminate. And so did the military and civilian government. Even with all the laws, they do many things I

would consider unfair. I just do not think it's the government's job to keep everything "fair".

In general, corporations would become less competitive by irrational exclusions, yet for many years, both the government and corporations

practiced irrational exclusions, because such was the social norm. It was the general drift of society that improved things, much more

than legal actions taken against those who were unfair.





Personal freedom is in important value to me, and I think it should be protected by the government, subject to limits such as we are discussing. Sure, in some cases that freedom would work against what is understood as " a free market". "freedom" does not maximize economic efficiency.

In reality, people and corporations make decisions with a degree of freedom and a degree of legal constraints. It's the question of what those constraints should be. If the government forces "fairness" in all aspects of life, there will be no freedom left. At all.

Well, probably 2 things are happening here.

I see freedom as freedom from domination. I see the concept of Alice Walton banning all dark-skinned people from all Walmarts as severely curtailing freedom. In fact, I see no way to enforce such an action broadly short of bringing the government in to arrest people who violate Alice Walton's wishes.

Do you see what I mean here?

When you scale it up and talk about a business owner's freedom, it's not some small business run by one guy who yells "Get out!"

It's a massive conglomeration of millions of stores that all need a way to force people to stay out of them.

And the only way they're going to do that successfully is violence. And the only legal way they're going to do that successfully is with government backing.

There is simply no other way to enforce such a private property "right" as the "right to discriminate" or the "right to segregate."

That's the rub with the RFRA thing. There will eventually be sit-downs, right? I mean, one day some group of gay people are going to go into a pizza shop that says "No gays allowed!" on a sign and just sit there. Even if they don't get service.

Now the owner will call the police, because how else is he going to force all these people to leave?

What should the police do?

Should the police say, "Get out limp-wrists!" Or should the police say, "They're not bothering anybody. Nothing we can do."

That's really the decision here.

It's not about whether the government can enforce something or not.

The government is involved and enforcing something either way.

In fact, the government has to take the rights of people to sit in public restaurants away by force in order to enforce the right of private property owners to discriminate against them.

So you see, either way the government is forcing something here. Either it enforces fairness, or it enforces unfairness.

Without the government to enforce them, there are no private property rights.

So the first thing that's happening here is this:

1. You are assuming that more private property rights = less government. But if you ask me, the #1 thing government does is enforce private property rights. That's what all property crime and all civil litigation is about. Expanded private property rights = more government = less freedom, if you insist on thinking of it that way.

The second thing that's happening, I think is this:

2. You are viewing freedom exclusively from the position of a business owner. But most people are not business owners. Should landlords also get to force tenants to wear clothes they prescribe? Or demand sexual favors from them? How about bosses? How far should the right for owners to dominate and control their subjects go?

[Woodsman]

Re: The death of freedom

Thanks for reminding us that a few Republicans are racists. But so are some Democrats:

More than a few, alas.

Don't forget Lester Maddox was a Democrat too.

I haven't. Do you need a reminder that the GOP of yore supported the Civil Rights Act and would be unrecognizable to principled Republicans today?

Did you forget that all the best racists and bigots moved to the GOP in the 70s and 80s? Do you not recall when Dixecrats started their move to the GOP in the 70s they were led by the most notorious racists in Congress - Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.

Speaking of Southern Strategies, you do know that Carter lost the south to Reagan when said Southern Democrats discovered Carter was not the conservative (read "racist") Democrat they were hoping for. Reagan blew the dog whistle loud and clear as advised by his manager, Lee Atwater and the GOP figured out how Republicans could win the vote of racists without sounding too racist themselves.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

From my reading, nothing much has changed. The racist Dixecrats became racists Republicans. Other than that, I don't see a meaningful difference.

And yes, yes. You spent several weeks as a VISTA volunteer 40+ years ago. Apparently that makes you beyond reproach, in your mind. I'm just so sorry the clients weren't more grateful and appreciative of your willingness to save them, vt.

[Polish_Silver]

how to do freedom

Well, probably 2 things are happening here.

I see freedom as freedom from domination. I see the concept of Alice Walton banning all dark-skinned people from all Walmarts as severely curtailing freedom. In fact, I see no way to enforce such an action broadly short of bringing the government in to arrest people who violate Alice Walton's wishes.?

I think you mentioned many of the critical factors. A Wallmart executive has a high degree of separation between his personal life and his economic decisions. So it makes sense that the government should enforce a higher standard of fairness on his business decisions than a sole proprietor operating out of his house. To some extent, our laws reflect this. I think it needs to be codified more extensively.

In general, for personally held private property, keeping someone out, for any reason, is just your right. That's why it is called "private property". But a Wallmart store does not belong to an individual, but a large corporation, which has many people in it's governing bodies, share holders, etc. So Wallmart's private property should be handled differently than an individuals residence. I think a sliding scale of fairness should be required of different parties.

Protecting fairness and freedom is a fundamental reason for the governments existence, and because the government has such vast economic and legal powers, it must be held to the highest standards of fairness, in it's courts, employment practices, etc.
In fact, moaning about a homophobic cake service is just plain ridiculous when the legal system continues to discriminate massively against African Americans.

A lower standard of fairness would apply to publicly held corporations. They exist to provide income for the owners and employees. For the reasons you give, they should still be subject to some laws about fair treatment for customers and business partners.

A sole proprietorship would be held to even fewer criteria of fairness. It is more like "part of a person" and has less power to harm others. The proprietor should be able to express his values in the way he conducts his business, even if that is unfair to some people. This argument becomes less compelling as the scope of his business increases.

I think this way of thinking resolves some of the tension between freedom and fairness we have been discussing.

[dcarrigg]

Re: how to do freedom

I think you mentioned many of the critical factors. A Wallmart executive has a high degree of separation between his personal life and his economic decisions. So it makes sense that the government should enforce a higher standard of fairness on his business decisions than a sole proprietor operating out of his house. To some extent, our laws reflect this. I think it needs to be codified more extensively.

In general, for personally held private property, keeping someone out, for any reason, is just your right. That's why it is called "private property". But a Wallmart store does not belong to an individual, but a large corporation, which has many people in it's governing bodies, share holders, etc. So Wallmart's private property should be handled differently than an individuals residence. I think a sliding scale of fairness should be required of different parties.

Protecting fairness and freedom is a fundamental reason for the governments existence, and because the government has such vast economic and legal powers, it must be held to the highest standards of fairness, in it's courts, employment practices, etc.
In fact, moaning about a homophobic cake service is just plain ridiculous when the legal system continues to discriminate massively against African Americans.

A lower standard of fairness would apply to publicly held corporations. They exist to provide income for the owners and employees. For the reasons you give, they should still be subject to some laws about fair treatment for customers and business partners.

A sole proprietorship would be held to even fewer criteria of fairness. It is more like "part of a person" and has less power to harm others. The proprietor should be able to express his values in the way he conducts his business, even if that is unfair to some people. This argument becomes less compelling as the scope of his business increases.

I think this way of thinking resolves some of the tension between freedom and fairness we have been discussing.

What about franchisees then? Do they get to decide? Should it be a random roll of the dice to find out which McDonalds allows blacks, which allows Greek Orthodox, and which bans Muslims and Gays but welcomes Buddhists? Or should the corporation get to set the rules for the franchisee just like they set up the rules for cooking hamburgers?

A sliding scale seems very difficult to me. There are a lot of giant publicly traded corporations that are nevertheless franchises. Do they need a different position too? Why is it a private property right for a small hobby shop to discriminate, but not the owners of Hobby Lobby? What definition of size would you use? How would you construct the scale?

I still don't understand what's so wrong about the way things are now. If you're a sole proprietor, and you want to discriminate, you may do so to your heart's content. There is no government law whatsoever that stops you from discriminating. The only law says that if you put an "open" sign up, and say you're open to the public, then you have to actually be open to the public. You are not prevented from being a private business that only serves private, select clients. The only time you are prevented from discriminating is if you run an accommodation business that is open to the public.

Do you want to run a private, whites-only club exclusively for men that functions as a hotel, day spa, and restaurant? You can. You really can. They exist. It's no problem to open one. Right now. Nobody will stop you.

Do you want to run a public hotel, day spa, and restaurant? Then you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, creed, or sex.

I don't see what is so terrible about this arrangment. Nor do I see how it inhibits freedom in any way.

Nobody is forcing the KKK to accept black people. Nobody is forcing Orthodox Jews to let Catholics sing in Latin at their services. Nobody is forcing the Piedmont Driving Club or the Missouri Athletic Club or the Old Colony Club to accept any members other than the ones they personally select. Ditto with the American Legion or the Elks or the Knights of Columbus or any of these places. In fact, at least in some states, you can be a private club and allow smoking indoors when public accommodations cannot. Just like that. The rights are back. You just have to be private. As in not public. You can even have a private market and a private trading operation.

I think the private/public distinction really solves it.

I don't know why any American want to go back 50+ years ago to the bad old days of segregation in public accommodations.

[Polish_Silver]

Doing work you don't like

What about franchisees then? Do they get to decide? Should it be a random roll of the dice to find out which McDonalds allows blacks, which allows Greek Orthodox, and which bans Muslims and Gays but welcomes Buddhists? Or should the corporation get to set the rules for the franchisee just like they set up the rules for cooking hamburgers?

A sliding scale seems very difficult to me


. . .

I think it is rather difficult in general, and the whole question of "fairness" is highly problematic, as well. My main beef with the current situations is the lack
of coherence in the public dialog, the lack of attention paid to the question of freedom and the (to me) downside of a government powerful enough to enforce ever more fairness.

My understanding of the cake question, was that it was a very small business, which was not being allowed to discriminate. Catering to a ceremony, to me, is a degree of participation in that. Suppose it was not a wedding celebration, but a Nazi party meeting. The cake people say, "we cannot stand being around Nazis-- we don't want to cater this celebration."

Should they be compelled to cater to that?

[Polish_Silver]

Can they discriminate?

. .

I still don't understand what's so wrong about the way things are now. If you're a sole proprietor, and you want to discriminate, you may do so to your heart's content. There is no government law whatsoever that stops you from discriminating. The only law says that if you put an "open" sign up, and say you're open to the public, then you have to actually be open to the public. You are not prevented from being a private business that only serves private, select clients. The only time you are prevented from discriminating is if you run an accommodation business that is open to the public.

. . . .

Is that really true? If a business has lights on, door open, but no sign at all, it can discriminate? I don't know the law, but I question whether it can legally discriminate.

If you are right, then some freedom is being protected and part of my "sliding scale" has already been put into law.

[vt]

Re: Freedom and limits

You said:

"Bigots and racists in the GOP and Tea Party can hoop and holler all they want against "liburuls" like Kennedy and Johnson for forcing them to serve people they hate."

Hey, no objection in calling out specific individuals as racists. And thank you for the chart that shows that there are a minority of both Republicans and Democrats that have negative views of minorities. But please stop the race card crap to try and lend support to your hatred of economic conservatives.

By the way the Tea Party is wrong. Government spending was necessary after the crash to keep us from falling into a recession. Too bad it wasn't spent on critically needed infrastructure. It could have provided high paying blue collar jobs; instead it was used as a a payoff to party cronies.

My Vista tour was for 13 months. How long did you work for Nixon?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Can they discriminate?

Is that really true? If a business has lights on, door open, but no sign at all, it can discriminate? I don't know the law, but I question whether it can legally discriminate.

If you are right, then some freedom is being protected and part of my "sliding scale" has already been put into law.

Yeah. I mean, it has to be a private organization. So they at least should go through the process of keeping a membership list. But they're allowed to exclude any non-members they want.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Can they discriminate?

Yeah. I mean, it has to be a private organization. So they at least should go through the process of keeping a membership list. But they're allowed to exclude any non-members they want.

If it can be "for profit" and exclude people, then it is a high degree of freedom.