Should businesses legally have to provide goods/services to everyone? (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

It depends how far you're going to push discrimination (which imo, will often end up being too far). For instance, I do believe there should be womens only gyms, male-only clubs etc but at the same time I don't think there should white-only swimming pools. I guess to me it depends on whether the act of 'discrimination' leads to an equitable result.... However that test is far too arbitrary, so I'd just say there should be no discrimination.

why shouldn't they be able to have white only pools? it's their business, so they should be able do what they like provided they're not encroaching upon the rights of others. And obviously "Being provided the goods of services of any business one chooses" is not a right

 

[Planck]

I'm sure there'll be black only pools, too

 

[Enteebee]

I think "not to be put at disadvantage due to the racial (or whatever) prejudices of others" should be considered a right. I have no problem necessarily with a "white-only" swimming pool, other than in cases where it means that some black people who wanted to go to a swimming pool now cannot (which I think is fairly likely to occur).

This is because there's more to being a business than simply making profit, in my opinion. You should also be a contributing, just asset to your community - and any reasonable laws we can put in place that may assist us in this goal should be.

If there were to be a black-only swimming pool I think it's rather unlikely that it would cause the same sort of problems, merely because if there's enough black people around for a black swimming pool - there's likely enough white people around to have a swimming pool they can also go to. However, in a case where you have a minority white community, then I think it would be unjust for white people to be denied access.

IMO though my personal subtleties of what is 'just/unjust' isn't that important. We need a consistent, strong and easily applicable set of laws - so I'd just say make all discrimination illegal and then set out the few caveats where the law doesn't apply.

 

[redmayne]

I'm sure there'll be black only pools, too

Are you...you know "completely with it"?

It's just I see your ridiculous comments around and wonder about your grasp on reality...

But hey, you're probably not serious.

 

[SylviaB]

I'm sure there'll be black only pools, too

to oppose a black only pool would be raycyst

I think "not to be put at disadvantage due to the racial (or whatever) prejudices of others" should be considered a right.

nope that's stupid

only way society can work is with voluntary interaction

I have no problem necessarily with a "white-only" swimming pool, other than in cases where it means that some black people who wanted to go to a swimming pool now cannot (which I think is fairly likely to occur).

say i opened a pool, and then I made it white only

government tells me I cant have white only, so i decide to close the pool
now no one swims

should government prevent me from closing my pool?

if you say no, then obviously people having access to a pool isn't important so you were getting upset over blacks not having pool access for no reason

This is because there's more to being a business than simply making profit, in my opinion. You should also be a contributing, just asset to your community.

by providing goods and services and creating wealth and jobs, they ARE contributing to society. im not saying we should reawrd them or anything, just that we should leave them alone to run their businesses how they want to

 

[BlackDragon]

People should have the freedom to create whatever type of pool (business) they want. Ruling that all businesses must accept everyone is the same as ruling that they must only accept certain people; it is imposing a morality on everyone. It does not matter whether there would be other businesses provide the service for others group or not, because we can't and shouldn't rule to people who they should interact with.

If some bozo wants to open a segregated aquatic centre then he will suffer the consequences of his actions in so far as people don't like him for being racist. But he has the right to do so. We can't impose one moral perspective on everyone.

 

[Enteebee]

nope that's stupid

only way society can work is with voluntary interaction

Not really... I mean we have a semi-voluntary ascension to laws. However if I beat some guys ass and get taken to jail, I wouldn't REALLY say that I volunteered for that to happen - I'm not a religious believer in the social contract. The way society appears to work in reality (to me) is a mixture of voluntary and involuntary interactions.

Furthermore, while I would say that shopping at the only shopping center in town is a voluntary action I wonder what you consider it? For if you consider having any option at all (even if living under extreme corporate dominion for instance) to be 'voluntary' then I would argue that you voluntarily abide by our laws - You could fight back, you could move away or you could blow your brains out.

say i opened a pool, and then I made it white only

government tells me I cant have white only, so i decide to close the pool
now no one swims

should government prevent me from closing my pool?

if you say no, then obviously people having access to a pool isn't important so you were getting upset over blacks not having pool access for no reason

I don't think it would be JUST to close down a white-only pool which I know will then be used by no one (with no alternative) for some odd reason. However I don't think our laws are all about what's just, there's a certain pragmatic utilitarianism to them.

by providing goods and services and creating wealth and jobs, they ARE contributing to society. im not saying we should reawrd them or anything, just that we should leave them alone to run their businesses how they want to

Sure, they are contributing - However they are not being a 'just' asset as they are doing something which (at least I) consider to be an injustice in denying certain people, based merely on the colour of their skin the enjoyment of their service.

=================================

People should have the freedom to create whatever type of pool (business) they want. Ruling that all businesses must accept everyone is the same as ruling that they must only accept certain people; it is imposing a morality on everyone. It does not matter whether there would be other businesses provide the service for another group or not, because we can't and shouldn't rule to people who they should interact with.

If some bozo wants to open a segregated aquatic centre then he will suffer the consequences of his actions in so far as people don't like him for being racist. But he has the right to do so. We can't impose one moral perspective on everyone.

But what about the suffering of the people who don't get to use his pool due to his attitude? Furthermore, let's extend this to say... Schools. Let's say all the best (obviously private in this libertarian dream world) schools around only accept non-black students, this would be a grave injustice for the entire nation as we would be purposely setting people up to fail and become criminals - So there can be detrimental effects to the entire community by allowing these sort of practices.

As for your earlier point, there is nothing in my opinion wrong with 'imposing' morality however there is a great deal of good. For instance, what about the right of property? Should we not impose our morality on people in regards to property rights?

Your issue with imposing morality seems like some sort of inner-culture relativism, whereby we can't say that someone is wrong merely because we think they are. My response would be that in a 'marketplace' of ideas we should be arguing that we ARE right, just as they may argue that they are... Otherwise we end up in a case where you can't honestly tell me that it's wrong to shoot you in the head - It may not be in some philosophical sense, but god damn it fight the idea as best you can.

 

[BlackDragon]

But what about the suffering of the people who don't get to use his pool due to his attitude? Furthermore, let's extend this to say... Schools. Let's say all the best (obviously private in this libertarian dream world) schools around only accept non-black students, this would be a grave injustice for the entire nation as we would be purposely setting people up to fail and become criminals - So there can be detrimental effects to the entire community by allowing these sort of practices.

Its not a libertarian dream world. It is just the normal world where we are less controlling of peoples' opinions - where the perspective that seems sensible to the majority is not imposed on all people. People have the right to believe and act how ever they want in so far as their actions to do restrict the basic rights and needs of others. There can be nothing wrong that schools or institutions that only accept certain types of people. It already happens now; many schools only accept bright students, or musically talented students, or Jewish students. How is this different? It is not. I mean private schools already discriminate against those who can't afford it. This is the same thing. There should always be government mechanisms in place to ensure that all people have access to those things that are considered their fundamental needs. And if education is considered one of these, and I certainly think it is, then there should be things in place that allow everyone to access these needs. It is just that it should not go so far as the situation where there are mechanisms in place to ensure the same morality. And these too already exist! ..People wanting to ban television shows because it offends them, people wanting to control fast food prices because of obesity...

As for your earlier point, there is nothing in my opinion wrong with 'imposing' morality however there is a great deal of good. For instance, what about the right of property? Should we not impose our morality on people in regards to property rights?

Property rights aren't a moral issue. They are a mechanism to protect our basic liberties and needs in that we require certain objects (such as shelter) to fulfill some of our more fundamental needs. The logical argument against that would be to say that if we allow people to not serve some other people then that will affect their basic needs. But there is a difference there. That's like saying we have to restrict some people from getting too rich because it stops many poorer people from having enough money. Legislation against our basic needs is to stop people directly harming one another, such as by punching them or stealing their property. Legislation to rule who people interact with governs the course of their lives in an attempt to give everyone an equal life. We can't legislate to control lives so that they are all equal.

Your issue with imposing morality seems like some sort of inner-culture relativism, whereby we can't say that someone is wrong merely because we think they are. My response would be that in a 'marketplace' of ideas we should be arguing that we ARE right, just as they may argue that they are... Otherwise we end up in a case where you can't honestly tell me that it's wrong to shoot you in the head - It may not be in some philosophical sense, but god damn it fight the idea as best you can.

You have just proven my point! I was arguing exactly what you were. If we make so that everyone must behave in the same way THEN we are legislating toward a situation where saying what we think makes absolutely no difference. We SHOULD have a marketplace of ideas, as you say, where people have different points of view and attitudes. To have this we must let people direct their lives the way they want to and to serve the people that they want to. That will be a true market place where people will suffer the consequences of their actions in a real way, where people have the choice not to shop somewhere. We can't legislate to CONTROL people.. its like ruling that buyers have a duty to consider all businesses equally..

 

[fliick]

Only legally have to provide indiscriminantly once they become Ltd.

 

[Fish Tank]

If a business wants to throw away dollars by denying service to a person, then by all means. I have no problems with a business refusing money.

 

[Enteebee]

It is just the normal world where we are less controlling of peoples' opinions - where the perspective that seems sensible to the majority is not imposed on all people.

It's not controlling opinion to ban discriminatory businesses. You can have your opinion about whether or not people should be allowed to bar certain races from using their businesses... What will be enforced is another matter -- And whether we enforced that people can 'choose' to discriminate or we enforce that they cannot, either way we are enforcing a moral code - On the one hand we have a moral code where it's okay to discriminate against people on the basis of race, the other is one where it is not.

I don't think it has anything much to do with the will of the majority. I believe that the will of the majority of Australians would have kept the white Australia policy going, and would see at least Muslim Immigration halted even today. The reason these things did not occur, is because there was enough political will in the country to get rid of the white Australia policy, to keep Muslim Immigration - that outweighed the will just of the majority.

I would argue political power in Australia (and most modern nations) comes from a mix of these sources:

• Populism (i.e. How much of the population are in favour of the bill... this would be your 'majority')
• Community groups, Trade Unions
• Corporate Interests, Lobbyists
• Corruption
• Political elites

It is a tug of war between these forces which in the end shapes our nations laws. It is imperfect for sure, but it's far from mere populism... and I feel this tug of war is enough to ensure that our government isn't exactly like the corporate monopolies I disagree with -- They always owe their power to these groups.

People have the right to believe and act how ever they want in so far as their actions [do not] restrict the basic rights and needs of others.

Since I doubt you have a very extensive list of 'basic rights and needs of others' I think I'd say that no, there's a lot more to it then that. Let me provide a few examples:

• People shouldn't be able to dupe people into Ponzai schemes or other nonsense. Essentially, people shouldn't be able to use others lack of knowledge about their own product and the market to make themselves rich at the expense of others.
• Businesses should be regulated, so that they cannot form cartels / have a monopoly -- For instance having a business own the Warragamba dam provides it with a near-monopoly over Sydney's water supply, which is far too much control for a corporation that doesn't owe its power to the same groups that the government does. It owes its power merely to its privilidged position.
• Lastly on this short list, as a relevant issue I'll say that Business should be a 'just' contributor to their communities - particularly in that they owe their success/failure to their community.

But where do these rights come from??

I feel I should note that I believe that all of these rights come about, or at least would come about 'naturally'. I believe that we already have a 'libertarian' society and that we have merely chosen to use tool constructs such as a 'government' to enforce our morals...

Story Time:

Let's say that in a future libertarian society, someone sets up a private township with rules such as "if you set up a pool, you have to allow any race to swim in it" and then you breach those rules.... You'd accept that a business setting its self up here could be shut down by the private township operator, right?

Let's go a bit further and say that the private township operator actually set in place a board of governance for the private township, with elections and what have you to decide the laws. They collect a percentage of the income you make in the township to pay for services etc.

Lastly, let's consider a child who is brought up in this private township - If the child grows up in the town, starts a business in the town and it is discriminatory - he is still subject to the rules right?

I would argue that what we have at the moment, is a lot like the private township and that we already live in one of these.

There can be nothing wrong that schools or institutions that only accept certain types of people. It already happens now; many schools only accept bright students, or musically talented students, or Jewish students. How is this different? It is not.

I'd argue that:

• It's hard to disagree with acceptance based on merit.
• It's a fact of life that not everyone can have everything, so schools that cost more will be unfortunately prohibitive.
• Lastly, that all religious schools in Australia (that I know of) accept non-religious students.

..People wanting to ban television shows because it offends them, people wanting to control fast food prices because of obesity...

I guess there's always two questions in this discussion:
1) What is just?
2) What is just to enforce?

On the first question, I would probably not want restrictions on any television show but would like restrictions (or at least, the removal of subsidies on things like corn syrup) on fast food. I have my reasons for these, but ultimately I think the more interesting question is what is just to enforce:

My argument would be that whatever ends up having the stronger political will, is the just thing to enforce. Yours I imagine would be that we shouldn't enforce anything - However I would argue that such enforcements would occur with or without a government as a coercive power...

Community groups, Trade unions, Corporations and individuals etc all have coercive power which they yield over our society. Getting rid of the government doesn't really change this picture, if anything it imo just gets rid of a largely symbolic 'vote' on behalf of the wider populace.

Property rights aren't a moral issue.

This is a pretty odd position to take... It's obvious to me that the question of whether a person can be said to 'own' something is a moral issue, probably one of the more important ones.

They are a mechanism to protect our basic liberties and needs in that we require certain objects (such as shelter) to fulfill some of our more fundamental needs.

I don't think they're any sort of mechanism... all that all 'rights' are, is a form of rhetoric about the established moral norms. I also don't think that property rights merely allow you to protect your basic needs, for instance a Millionaire calling the cops about a pauper stealing one of his 100 automobiles is still enforcing his property right - but it's got nothing to do with his 'basic needs'.

We SHOULD have a marketplace of ideas, as you say, where people have different points of view and attitudes.

We do... there is nothing more than the ideas and coersion of others that stops someone from opening a whites only swimming pool. If they had enough political will on their side, they could do the same.

I guess the question is more whether the 'idea' of using coersion other others should be acceptible at all. Personally, I think it's silly to imagine a world where you wouldn't have such coersion... I think it is rather natural. All that the government is, is a way of groups to use their coersion in perhaps a more peaceful manner (Perhaps, so that the rabble doesn't go 1789 on you).

We can't legislate to CONTROL people.. its like ruling that buyers have a duty to consider all businesses equally..

We can legislate to control people - and if we didn't legislate then we'd use one of a billion other mechanisms to control people.

 

[BlackDragon]

lol i read it. its long. basically we have begun to discuss positive and negative liberties and whether the state should legislate to produce positive freedoms (where social forces allow people to have the same opportunities as others) or whether they should simply stop at negative liberties (the right to do something). The argument against negative liberties is that just because someone has the freedom to buy a nice house that doesn't mean he will ever be able to actually do so. He only has the freedom to do so in a negative way. I think producing positive freedoms is very important but I just think that we can't go too far. but I'll reply tomorrow when I feel like writing heaps more. p.s. I don't think our positions are that far from each other.

 

[Enteebee]

lol i read it. its long. basically we have begun to discuss positive and negative liberties and whether the state should legislate to produce positive freedoms (where social forces allow people to have the same opportunities as others) or whether they should simply stop at negative liberties (the right to do something). The argument against negative liberties is that just because someone has the freedom to buy a nice house that doesn't mean he will ever be able to actually do so. He only has the freedom to do so in a negative way. I think producing positive freedoms is very important but I just think that we can't go too far. but I'll reply tomorrow when I feel like writing heaps more.

Look forward to hearing it, by the way:

p.s. I don't think our positions are that far from each other.

That's not good news. While I think it's nice to assess and have a firm grasp of what we both agree to, the juicy stuff is always in the disagreements

 

[BlackDragon]

I guess the question is more whether the 'idea' of using coersion other others should be acceptible at all. Personally, I think it's silly to imagine a world where you wouldn't have such coersion... I think it is rather natural. All that the government is, is a way of groups to use their coersion in perhaps a more peaceful manner (Perhaps, so that the rabble doesn't go 1789 on you).

I think we completely agree on this. The government is just uniform coersion. And otherwise coersion isn't bad, it just what happens when people live. When we try to make lives for ourselves we try to influence things to our favour.