PDA

View Full Version : Should religions have the right to discriminate (sf dangers of belief)



Capablanca-Fan
28-09-2009, 08:03 AM
Yesterday, while sitting on the train to the city, some Christian nut disturbed everyone by singing hymns to Lord Jesus. Allelujah this, allelujah that. You see these sickos around. If you ask me, such behaviour should be banned. Anyway, that was just pissing me off.
Wouldn't be my thing either.


But then I saw this piece of news (http://www.theage.com.au/national/government-bows-to-religious-right-20090926-g76u.html).
A good piece of news for sure, for sure — separation of church and state and all, in the original Jeffersonian understanding of keeping the government from interfering with religion.

Kevin Bonham
28-09-2009, 06:51 PM
A good piece of news for sure, for sure — separation of church and state and all, in the original Jeffersonian understanding of keeping the government from interfering with religion.

That depends on whether the "church" bodies in question are separated from the state in the first place. If they are in receipt of government funding or tax concessions then they are not and should not be entitled to discriminate.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-09-2009, 07:25 PM
That depends on whether the "church" bodies in question are separated from the state in the first place. If they are in receipt of government funding or tax concessions then they are not and should not be entitled to discriminate.

Generally speaking it's a good idea. However, like any justice, it only work if applied universally, not selectively.
I agree that any community group should be stripped from government funding, not just religious.

Same applies to school. Either no funding to schools at all, or every child is funded to the same amount - and parents are free to choose whatever school they want.

Capablanca-Fan
28-09-2009, 07:50 PM
I agree that any community group should be stripped from government funding, not just religious.
Indeed, like ACORN in the USA, albeit belatedly,


Same applies to school. Either no funding to schools at all, or every child is funded to the same amount — and parents are free to choose whatever school they want.
Agreed.

Rincewind
28-09-2009, 07:57 PM
I think the recent posts in this thread are off-topic to the original and should be moved to a thread on separation of church and state.

The first recent post by arosar would be off topic even for that but I don't know if there is a thread for whinging about god-bothers. However it doesn't seem to have legs whereas this secular society and the role of public education could.

TheJoker
29-09-2009, 01:16 PM
Generally speaking it's a good idea. However, like any justice, it only work if applied universally, not selectively.
I agree that any community group should be stripped from government funding, not just religious.

I think funding is a side issue, since all private non-government businesses are prohibited from discriminating in the manner afforded to religious groups in Vic.

Religious groups should be subject to the same broad anti-discrimination (and taxation) laws as any other business / not-for-profit organisation.

Therefore either the laws are changed across the board or they are not.

I suspect these laws will prevail until a group like the KKK surfaces, albeit targeting sexuality rather than race, under the protection of the new legislation nd then they will revert back to a single law for all organisations.


and parents are free to choose whatever school they want.

Parents are totally free to choose whatever school they like. It's Australian workers (parents or not) who do not have the option of choosing whether to subsidise both government and private schools.

Yes the subsidies distort the market price of education for both public and private schools. If you truly believe in the supremacy of the market you'd be arguing for a user-pays system without any public funding whatsoever. But then again we all know that wouldn't work.

BTW if you're in NSW you'd be best placed choosing a good public school since they perform better academically and cost less per student than thier private counterparts (stats provided in previous threads use the search function if you are interested).

Igor_Goldenberg
29-09-2009, 02:27 PM
I think funding is a side issue, since all private non-government businesses are prohibited from discriminating in the manner afforded to religious groups in Vic.
I am not sure whether it's true or not. If it is, then it's wrong, as it nullifies freedom of association.


Parents are totally free to choose whatever school they like. It's Australian workers (parents or not) who do not have the option of choosing whether to subsidise both government and private schools.

Yes the subsidies distort the market price of education for both public and private schools. If you truly believe in the supremacy of the market you'd be arguing for a user-pays system without any public funding whatsoever. But then again we all know that wouldn't work.


I generally support user-pays system (with lower taxes). Education is probably the only area where I am willing to compromise to the degree I mentioned before.

TheJoker
02-10-2009, 04:56 PM
I am not sure whether it's true or not. If it is, then it's wrong, as it nullifies freedom of association.

So do you rules that expressly prohibit certain people from joining organisations!

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2009, 05:15 PM
So do you rules that expressly prohibit certain people from joining organisations!
Come off it. There is no right to be associated with groups that don't want to be associated with you.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-10-2009, 08:59 PM
So do you rules that expressly prohibit certain people from joining organisations!
Is it alright for fitness club (http://www.fernwoodfitness.com.au/) to be "women only"?
By any definition it's a gender based discrimination.
Personally, I have no problem with it.
But why other organisations aren't and shouldn't be allowed to do the same?

Kevin Bonham
04-10-2009, 09:29 PM
Is it alright for fitness club (http://www.fernwoodfitness.com.au/) to be "women only"?
By any definition it's a gender based discrimination.
Personally, I have no problem with it.
But why other organisations aren't and shouldn't be allowed to do the same?

It often comes down to the strength of the reasons for being allowed to discriminate that an organisation or business is able to offer. Women's-only fitness clubs are generally fairly easy to justify because there are women who will not go to mixed-gender fitness clubs because of concern that sports jocks will perve on them or try to chat them up. Furthermore in most cases the existence of such clubs cannot be argued to concretely disadvantage men or deny men a service. It gets a bit trickier if there is only one fitness club in an area and it is female-only.

That said, there have been cases where complaints against women's-only fitness clubs have succeeded, in some jurisdictions.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-10-2009, 08:01 PM
It often comes down to the strength of the reasons for being allowed to discriminate that an organisation or business is able to offer. Women's-only fitness clubs are generally fairly easy to justify because there are women who will not go to mixed-gender fitness clubs because of concern that sports jocks will perve on them or try to chat them up. Furthermore in most cases the existence of such clubs cannot be argued to concretely disadvantage men or deny men a service. It gets a bit trickier if there is only one fitness club in an area and it is female-only.

That said, there have been cases where complaints against women's-only fitness clubs have succeeded, in some jurisdictions.

But why does an organisation has to justify anything? Don't like the rules - don't join. As long as the rules are transparent, I see no problems with that.

TheJoker
06-10-2009, 10:38 AM
But why does an organisation has to justify anything? Don't like the rules - don't join. As long as the rules are transparent, I see no problems with that.

Because organisations are part of the community and therefore accountable to the community. Remember its the community that decides the rules in a democracy.

TheJoker
06-10-2009, 10:59 AM
Is it alright for fitness club (http://www.fernwoodfitness.com.au/) to be "women only"?
By any definition it's a gender based discrimination.
Personally, I have no problem with it.
But why other organisations aren't and shouldn't be allowed to do the same?

The answer is simple, you evaluate expections to the general rule of prohibiting certain forms of discrimination (e.g. gender, race etc) based on there merit.

Women-only gyms obviously have a large number of benefits and dont cause any form of servere disadvantage.

A big difference to say denying someone access to earning a particular income beacause of race or gender without being able to demonstrate that it has some benefit other than allowing an organisation or individual to enact their predjudices.

What argument do reglious groups have for discriminating against gender or sexuality? What's the benefit to the community of allowing them to do so?

Capablanca-Fan
06-10-2009, 11:00 AM
Because organisations are part of the community and therefore accountable to the community. Remember its the community that decides the rules in a democracy.
That's a problem with pure democracy then — a tyranny of the majority (or of bureaucrats purporting to represent the majority). The American Founders specifically rejected a democracy for that reason. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” John Adams predicted, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, “… that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” In ancient Greece, such tyranny resulted in ostracisms, for example.

How many other decisions would you like being made for you by the majority? If and whom to marry? What car to drive? What food you eat? So why should freedom of association be decided by the majority?


A big difference to say denying someone access to earning a particular income beacause of race or gender without being able to demonstrate that it has some benefit other than allowing an organisation or individual to enact their predjudices.
Why should they have to? It's enough that they don't want to associate with them. Then the community's choice is whether to join this association.

What argument do reglious groups have for discriminating against gender or sexuality? What's the benefit to the community of allowing them to do so?[/QUOTE]
Why is it the community's business?

TheJoker
06-10-2009, 11:27 AM
That's a problem with pure democracy then — a tyranny of the majority (or of bureaucrats purporting to represent the majority). The American Founders specifically rejected a democracy for that reason. In ancient Greece, such tyranny resulted in ostracisms, for example.

How many other decisions would you like being made for you by the majority? If and whom to marry? What car to drive? What food you eat? So why should freedom of association be decided by the majority??

I think individual freedom of association is still protected, organisational freedom to discriminate against certain aspects is not. If a homoseuxal joins your church you are still free to choose not associate with them, whether that means joining another church or avioding conversation with them.

BTW what car I can drive is to some extent regulated by society and rightly so, so is who I can marry again rightly so (I can't marry a minor for instance).

But if you want to argue for a 'bill of rights' that define the rights of an individual then that's a different arguement.


Why should they have to? It's enough that they don't want to associate with them.

Not in my opinion, baseless discrimination has braod negative impacts on the community as a whole, for example it decreases productivity. Therefore if you want to discriminate you should have to provide a reason.


Why is it the community's business?

Because they are part of the community and therefore accountable to the community.

arosar
06-10-2009, 11:51 AM
A couple of Australia's most preeminent social clubs, the Melbourne and Australia clubs, have remained staunchly male only. So steadfast are they with this policy that even the current national GG, Quentin Bryce, can't get in despite the fact that these clubs have normally extended membership to the GG office holder.

I don't think the GG is particularly concerned about single-sex social clubs, for she then went ahead and joined the female only Lyceum!

AR

Kevin Bonham
06-10-2009, 12:28 PM
I find those single-gender clubs absurd but I can't see any reason for banning them.

I'm going to move this thread to the Politics section soon; it was borderline to begin with and is drifting more into generic politics.

Capablanca-Fan
06-10-2009, 12:44 PM
I think individual freedom of association is still protected, organisational freedom to discriminate against certain aspects is not. If a homoseuxal joins your church you are still free to choose not associate with them, whether that means joining another church or avioding conversation with them.
Why are the existing church members not free to decide who else becomes a member, and instead being forced to accept someone who trashes their beliefs?


BTW what car I can drive is to some extent regulated by society and rightly so, so is who I can marry again rightly so (I can't marry a minor for instance).
But what if the majority told you that you could not marry a non-white, or demanded that you marry the New Zealand ladies' shotput champ to cement relations between the countries?


Not in my opinion, baseless discrimination has braod negative impacts on the community as a whole, for example it decreases productivity. Therefore if you want to discriminate you should have to provide a reason.
Baseless discrimination hurts the discriminator in a free market. The disriminator would be doing himself out of superior employees or customers for example.

But big government anti-discrimination bodies result in unintended consequences. For example, pronouncing an organization guilty of discrimination simply because of disparity, which in turn led to American lenders being pressured to lend to those less likely to repay, a large factor in the current financial crisis. This is only one example where presumption of innocence is replaced by presumption of guilt (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/call-to-switch-onus-on-racist-offences/2008/04/04/1207249461190.html). Furthermore, anti-discrimination bureaucracy that seeks to justify its existence by demanding more and more laws for it to police, since there aren't enough complaints under existing laws (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8789/smh3.html).


Because they are part of the community and therefore accountable to the community.
No they are not.

Capablanca-Fan
06-10-2009, 12:45 PM
I find those single-gender clubs absurd but I can't see any reason for banning them.
I agree.

TheJoker
06-10-2009, 01:56 PM
Why are the existing church members not free to decide who else becomes a member, and instead being forced to accept someone who trashes their beliefs?.

Because their beliefs are obviously inconsistent with the law, which reflects (or is intended to reflect) the wider community beliefs. Why am I forced to wear clothes in public?



But what if the majority told you that you could not marry a non-white, or demanded that you marry the New Zealand ladies' shotput champ to cement relations between the countries?.

I'd either seek to have the law changed, break the law and face the consequences or move to a community that had laws that better reflect my personal values.



Baseless discrimination hurts the discriminator in a free market. The disriminator would be doing himself out of superior employees or customers for example.

Possibily however, if a culture of discrimination exists, then the market wont correct this and productivity is lost. It wasn't free market forces that ended apartheid in SA.

Secondly in a free market it doesn't pay to service all of the market. In fact targeting particular customer groups is far more effective therefore some people will remain perpetually disadvantaged due to a lack of available goods and services.

Education is a good example, in a free market it doesn't pay to educate those in poverty (since they can't pay for the service) the lack of education leads to a lack of income earning ability, which in turn leads to a lack of ability to education the next generation, and so we have a case of perpetual free market disadvantage (both for the individual and the community), this can only remied by a non-market solution (subsidies or public education).

Moreover, the "agency problem" means the market is less likely to correct this problem, it might not be in the organisations interest to discriminate but it might be in the individual managers interest.


But big government anti-discrimination bodies result in unintended consequences. For example, pronouncing an organization guilty of discrimination simply because of disparity, which in turn led to American lenders being pressured to lend to those less likely to repay, a large factor in the current financial crisis.

Actually there was no force involved, market demand for mortage securities drove the increase in sub-prime debt, not government legislation.



This is only one example where presumption of innocence is replaced by presumption of guilt (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/call-to-switch-onus-on-racist-offences/2008/04/04/1207249461190.html)..

Not the only example since the presumption of innocence is not a universal legal concept and many working system exist that have no presumption of innocence. That said I support the presumption of innocence in dsicrimination cases.


Furthermore, anti-discrimination bureaucracy that seeks to justify its existence by demanding more and more laws for it to police, since there aren't enough complaints under existing laws[/URL].

Quickly skiimming Bolt's opinion piece, I don't see anywhere that suggests anybody is asking for further legislation. Just that the Commisioner feels that a large number of incidences of racism go unreported, nothing to do with your assertion of more laws.



No they are not.

Not what part of the community or accountable to the community?

You might want to consider a thing called the law which makes individuals and organisations accountable to the community for the their actions.

Then again you might believe religious organisation are above the law?


BTW if you want to debate that their is no need for anti-discrimination laws then I think that is a broader debate for the community, one which i suspect wouldn't enjoy much widespread support. But I certainly can't see any reason to make an exception for religious organisations and not for all business and not-for-profit. Either organisatiions have to justify why they should be allowed to discriminate (as in the gender specific gyms), or no anti-discrimination legislation exists at all. My personal opinion is that the later would represent a step backwards.

Desmond
06-10-2009, 02:36 PM
But what if the majority told you that you could not marry a non-white, or demanded that you marry the New Zealand ladies' shotput champ to cement relations between the countries?Not your type Jono?


http://z.about.com/d/trackandfield/1/0/h/3/-/-/valerie-Vili2-Mark-Dadswell.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
06-10-2009, 07:29 PM
Because their beliefs are obviously inconsistent with the law, which reflects (or is intended to reflect) the wider community beliefs. Why am I forced to wear clothes in public?
The parallel would be, why would you be forced to wear clothes in your own home, or in a privately owned place where the owner consented.


I'd either seek to have the law changed, break the law and face the consequences or move to a community that had laws that better reflect my personal values.
Good for you. A better solution is to limit the reach of government/community into private lives.


Possibily however, if a culture of discrimination exists, then the market wont correct this and productivity is lost.
Their loss. But in America, Blacks made their biggest strides in the two decades before civil rights laws. But the soi-disant black leaders and white lefties don't want to admit this, because they don't want improvement in the lot of ordinary black people unless they can take credit for it.


It wasn't free market forces that ended apartheid in SA.
Yet apartheid impoverished SA too, but not as much as the unspoken apartheid of tribalism in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa or the Bumi-Putra policy in Malaysia. And are the blacks in SA better off now being oppressed by other blacks instead of by whites?


Secondly in a free market it doesn't pay to service all of the market. In fact targeting particular customer groups is far more effective therefore some people will remain perpetually disadvantaged due to a lack of available goods and services.
Yet many disadvantaged groups, like the Chinese in SE Asia and the Jews, flourished under discriminatory laws, because there was a relatively free market for their goods and services. Conversely, American Blacks suffer in bad government schools, especially in locales with Black politicians in power.


Education is a good example, in a free market it doesn't pay to educate those in poverty (since they can't pay for the service) the lack of education leads to a lack of income earning ability, which in turn leads to a lack of ability to education the next generation, and so we have a case of perpetual free market disadvantage (both for the individual and the community), this can only remied by a non-market solution (subsidies or public education).
Yet America throws more and more money at education, yet has consistently worse results. Subsidies to the students would be a better solution.


Moreover, the "agency problem" means the market is less likely to correct this problem, it might not be in the organisations interest to discriminate but it might be in the individual managers interest.
If this sufficiently harms his employer, then it's in the employer's interest to fire a discriminatory manager.


Actually there was no force involved, market demand for mortage securities drove the increase in sub-prime debt, not government legislation.
You haven't a clue, given your love for big government. It's a fact that government laws in some places that restricted land drove up prices. Also factual is that the community Reinvestment Act pressured lenders to lend to poor credit risks, aided by fallacious accusations of discrimination. And Congress protected Fannie and Freddie from accountability (mainly Dems but some Republicrats too). This is thoroughly documented in Dr Thomas Sowell's book The Housing Boom and Bust (http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/20/the-housing-boom-and-bust).


Not the only example since the presumption of innocence is not a universal legal concept and many working system exist that have no presumption of innocence.
Like the "child abuse" Gestapo in many areas.


That said I support the presumption of innocence in dsicrimination cases.
Good.


Quickly skiimming Bolt's opinion piece, I don't see anywhere that suggests anybody is asking for further legislation. Just that the Commisioner feels that a large number of incidences of racism go unreported, nothing to do with your assertion of more laws.
Which should be evidence that his bureaucracy is unnecessary.


You might want to consider a thing called the law which makes individuals and organisations accountable to the community for the their actions.
The Law should exist to protect individuals from fraud or force, whether by other individuals or by a tyranny of the majority.


BTW if you want to debate that their is no need for anti-discrimination laws then I think that is a broader debate for the community, one which i suspect wouldn't enjoy much widespread support.
More likely, government bureaucracies are very good at self-preservation, and largely immune from "community" wishes.


But I certainly can't see any reason to make an exception for religious organisations and not for all business and not-for-profit.
Well, a law with exceptions is usually a bad law. So it's justification for getting rid of this elephantine self-serving government bureaucracy.


Either organisations have to justify why they should be allowed to discriminate (as in the gender specific gyms), or no anti-discrimination legislation exists at all. My personal opinion is that the later would represent a step backwards.
What do you prefer, Canada's Human Rights Kangaroo Courts?

TheJoker
07-10-2009, 10:03 AM
The parallel would be, why would you be forced to wear clothes in your own home, or in a privately owned place where the owner consented.

No at all, whether I wear clothes at home or not, has very little if any impact on the outside community. Whether religious schools, a major player in the education industry, discriminate against certain groups has a signficant impact on the community in terms of access to income and education.



Good for you. A better solution is to limit the reach of government/community into private lives..

Only so far as their actions do not negatively impact upon others in manner the community deems unacceptable.




Their loss.

By their you the community's loss. Which is why the community has the right to prevent such behaviour.


Yet apartheid impoverished SA too, but not as much as the unspoken apartheid of tribalism in the rest of sub-Saharan

And it will probably take legislation end these practices based on outdated beliefs.



Yet many disadvantaged groups, like the Chinese in SE Asia and the Jews, flourished under discriminatory laws, because there was a relatively free market for their goods and services. Conversely, American Blacks suffer in bad government schools, especially in locales with Black politicians in power.

I suspect that is primarily due to both the Jewish and Chinese generally having an entreprenuerial culture were as Africans did not. Nobody doubts the opportunities provided by a free market. By free market I mean market with relatively free access, not necessarily free from restrictions.



Yet America throws more and more money at education, yet has consistently worse results. Subsidies to the students would be a better solution.

Yet America spends more per capita on private education than any other OECD country. And has one of the highest private to public education expenditure ratios in the OECD.

You assert that subsidising student would be a better solution, can you provide any clear cut evidence to support this (e.g. a country where is this method has achieve effective results accross the board?)



If this sufficiently harms his employer, then it's in the employer's interest to fire a discriminatory manager.

Except that the shareholder is almost always clueless to the majoirty of actions perfromed by management. By the time they realise the damage has been done. In fact I would go as far to say that anti-discrimination laws parially help protect shareholders against "agency problems" such as nepotism and predjudice managers. And therefore reduce investor risk and increase market efficiency



You haven't a clue, given your love for big government. It's a fact that government laws in some places that restricted land drove up prices. Also factual is that the community Reinvestment Act pressured lenders to lend to poor credit risks, aided by fallacious accusations of discrimination. And Congress protected Fannie and Freddie from accountability (mainly Dems but some Republicrats too). This is thoroughly documented in Dr Thomas Sowell's book The Housing Boom and Bust (http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/20/the-housing-boom-and-bust)..

Instead of listening to Sowel theorise (with extreme bias) about what drove people to to issue sub-prime loans. Why not listen to the people actually involved in issuing the debt, and you'll find the main driver was short-term profits and market demand. Demand was artifically inflated due to undisclosed or imporerly assessed risk. The majority of sub-prime loans where not issued under the CRA, and those that where actually had less defaults.



Which should be evidence that his bureaucracy is unnecessary.

What a stupid statement. Using the same "logic", the majority of rape cases go unreported therefore we shouldn't have a bureacracy to try to increase the reporting of rape within the community despite the obvious damage it causes:rolleyes:



The Law should exist to protect individuals from fraud or force, whether by other individuals or by a tyranny of the majority.

What a ridiculously narrow concept of the function of the law. The law protect people from more than fraud or force, it protects from unfair disadvantage. For example, you can't go a place a sewage treatment plant in residential area for obvious reasons, nothing to do with fraud or force. Such laws are essential in promoting economic growth because the certainty they provide reduces investor risk and therefore promotes investment. Would buy a house in an area that wasn't subject to any zoning where a rubbish tip could be built next door?


If I am a salesman I should disclose any product service risks to you so that you can make a an informed decision when entering into a contrct of sale. We see what happens to investor confidence across the board when this fails as in the GFC.


More likely, government bureaucracies are very good at self-preservation, and largely immune from "community" wishes.

Same applies to large organisations and shareholder wishes. It called an agency problem and it occurs in both large public and private organisations. Eron is a good example, I suggest you watch the documentary 'the smartest guys in the room'. People are actively pursuing ways to increase corporate and public governance. If you have any new ideas in this respect I'd appreciate to hear them.



Well, a law with exceptions is usually a bad law.

Based on what premise. The world is not black and white. For example it is illegal to kill a person, except in genuine self defence. A law with an exception that is generally useful and certainly should be abandoned. And is not merely propping up a bureacracy to support it.

I am afraid your minarchist argument fails on so many levels including efficient markets. I agree government regulation needs to be reformed so that it adds value rather than subtracts value, but not based on hasty ideological premises. Anyway those clinging to the Milton Friedman veiw of econmics are slowly diminishing, his work has been incorporated into more comprehensive theories that understand the regulation has in creating confidence in markets with asymetirc information which is fundamental to their efficiency.


What do you prefer?

Anti-discrimination legislation that prevents organisations from discriminating on certain grounds (such as race and sexuality) except where the discrimination can be shown to be benefical.

I can't see any benefit in gving an exemption to relgious organisatins such as schools.

Capablanca-Fan
07-10-2009, 11:00 AM
No at all, whether I wear clothes at home or not, has very little if any impact on the outside community. Whether religious schools, a major player in the education industry, discriminate against certain groups has a signficant impact on the community in terms of access to income and education.
Come off it. I don't see most of the "community" minding. Much horrific damage has been done by those who profess to be acting for the "community"/"people".


By their you the community's loss. Which is why the community has the right to prevent such behaviour.
So what next? Deciding what food people eat, including banning fast food? Mandating 30 min exercise every day? Where do you stop if the "community" has the right to regulate individual behaviours that might harm the "community"?

Your devotion to "community" rights seems to stop at its right to define marriage as one man + one woman.


I suspect that is primarily due to both the Jewish and Chinese generally having an entreprenuerial culture were as Africans did not. Nobody doubts the opportunities provided by a free market. By free market I mean market with relatively free access, not necessarily free from restrictions.
Yet the free market provides better opportunities for ordinary people than political power. And this shows that it would be better to encourage African Americans to adopt the attitudes of Asian- and Jewish-Americans than to feed the grievance-mongering.


Yet America spends more per capita on private education than any other OECD country. And has one of the highest private to public education expenditure ratios in the OECD.
In America, the government doesn't fund private education. They have less parental choice than Australia and Europe.

Bx4pN-aiofw


You assert that subsidising student would be a better solution, can you provide any clear cut evidence to support this (e.g. a country where is this method has achieve effective results accross the board?)
More likely, can you provide any evidence that a government monopoly provides any goods better than a private system, where providers must compete for customers?


Except that the shareholder is almost always clueless to the majoirty of actions perfromed by management. By the time they realise the damage has been done. In fact I would go as far to say that anti-discrimination laws parially help protect shareholders against "agency problems" such as nepotism and predjudice managers. And therefore reduce investor risk and increase market efficiency
More likely, they have forced large companies to hire quotas; or to avoid this, move to an area with a low proportion of the politically favoured group. Also, members of less favoured groups have been fired.


Instead of listening to Sowel theorise (with extreme bias) about what drove people to to issue sub-prime loans. Why not listen to the people actually involved in issuing the debt, and you'll find the main driver was short-term profits and market demand. Demand was artifically inflated due to undisclosed or imporerly assessed risk. The majority of sub-prime loans where not issued under the CRA, and those that where actually had less defaults.
Why not consider his practical documentation of what went wrong? Without government restrictions driving up land prices, and government encouragement of sub-prime loans, this crises would never have happened. The private industries at fault were merely responding to the conditions the government encouraged. It's notable that most cases of defaults and skyrocketing house prices were in areas with most government interference.


What a stupid statement. Using the same "logic", the majority of rape cases go unreported therefore we shouldn't have a bureacracy to try to increase the reporting of rape within the community despite the obvious damage it causes:rolleyes:
Indeed we should not: existing laws are enough. We do not want the other extreme of lots of vexatiously false complaints of rape, as has already happened with child abuse.


What a ridiculously narrow concept of the function of the law. The law protect people from more than fraud or force, it protects from unfair disadvantage.
How can it do that? I'm unfairly disadvantaged because I can't play table tennis well, for example. Different advantages and disadvantages are part of the real world.


For example, you can't go a place a sewage treatment plant in residential area for obvious reasons, nothing to do with fraud or force. Such laws are essential in promoting economic growth because the certainty they provide reduces investor risk and therefore promotes investment. Would buy a house in an area that wasn't subject to any zoning where a rubbish tip could be built next door?
This would be covered by existing property rights. Under the current system, the government can abrogate these and declare an area the next site for a sewage plant, or that houses must be demolished to make way for big businesses to develop properties that would bring in greater tax revenue (cf. the SCOTUS ruling in Kelo v. New London, 2005 (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freetradeopenmarkets/p/kelovlondon.htm)).


If I am a salesman I should disclose any product service risks to you so that you can make a an informed decision when entering into a contrct of sale.
No problems with laws against fraud by omission.


We see what happens to investor confidence across the board when this fails as in the GFC.
Indeed, but why is investor confidence low? Because the government is not providing stability (will it or won't it bail out Lehman or AiG?). If rules keep changing, investors stay away.


Same applies to large organisations and shareholder wishes. It called an agency problem and it occurs in both large public and private organisations. Eron is a good example, I suggest you watch the documentary 'the smartest guys in the room'. People are actively pursuing ways to increase corporate and public governance. If you have any new ideas in this respect I'd appreciate to hear them.
Ken Lay of Enron was a devoted Clinton supporter, and lefty economist Paul Krugman was once an advisor. Enron backed Kyoto because it would hurt competitors more, and donated tons to the Dems. See 50 reasons why the Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to ENRON (http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/guest/qtr1/0216.htm).


Based on what premise. The world is not black and white. For example it is illegal to kill a person, except in genuine self defence.
Here it is a rational exemption, since the purpose of a law against killing is saving lives, so it's not unreasonable to have an exemption to save one's own life.


I am afraid your minarchist argument fails on so many levels including efficient markets. I agree government regulation needs to be reformed so that it adds value rather than subtracts value, but not based on hasty ideological premises.
Sowell discusses this too. But it's hard to expect politicians to put out fires when they are the arsonists in the first place.


Anyway those clinging to the Milton Friedman veiw of econmics are slowly diminishing, his work has been incorporated into more comprehensive theories that understand the regulation has in creating confidence in markets with asymetirc information which is fundamental to their efficiency.
Sez you. Yet France, Germany, Canada, and NZ have moved right, and Americans are falling out of love with Commissar Obamov.


Anti-discrimination legislation that prevents organisations from discriminating on certain grounds (such as race and sexuality) except where the discrimination can be shown to be benefical.
Yet the cost of the bureaucracy and other unintended consequences do more harm than good. And as I said, American blacks were overcoming discrimination and prospering in the two decades before civil rights and affirmative action.


I can't see any benefit in gving an exemption to relgious organisatins such as schools.
I can't see much benefit in government interference into who someone wants to employ (any law can have some seen benefit; it's the unseen costs that are the problem. Likewise, anything has some costs, but if these are focused on without considering the benefits, no improvements would ever be made).

Igor_Goldenberg
07-10-2009, 03:41 PM
Because organisations are part of the community and therefore accountable to the community. Remember its the community that decides the rules in a democracy.
What is "the community"? There are individuals, families, different groups. All with different interests. Are you going to deny their right to live the way they want (as long as don't harm others)?

Capablanca-Fan
07-10-2009, 03:46 PM
Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Think things, not words." In words, many see a need for "social justice" to override "the dictates of the market." In reality, what is called "the market" consists of human beings making their own choices at their own cost. What is called "social justice" is government imposition of the notions of third parties, who pay no price for being wrong.—Thomas Sowell (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/10/07/random_thoughts?page=2)

Adamski
07-10-2009, 09:45 PM
Not your type Jono?


http://z.about.com/d/trackandfield/1/0/h/3/-/-/valerie-Vili2-Mark-Dadswell.jpgShe actually won the Gold at the last Olympics for NZ. In that very event, women's shot.

TheJoker
07-10-2009, 10:09 PM
What is "the community"? There are individuals, families, different groups. All with different interests. Are you going to deny their right to live the way they want (as long as don't harm others)?

The part in brackets is the most important part of the statement, in my opinion generally government only regulate when actions have the potential to unfairly harm/disadvantage others directly or indirectly. Smoking for example harms others both directly as in passive smoking and indirectly in increased health cost (public and private premiums), not to mention loss of productivity.

Spiny Norman
08-10-2009, 04:40 AM
My own view on this topic is simple:

PUBLIC institutions should NOT be allowed to discriminate on the basic of sex, race, religion, etc.

PRIVATE institutions should be allowed to discriminate as much as they like PROVIDED that they do not break any other laws in the process (no hate speech, no incitement to commit criminal acts, etc).

What is gained by forcing people who don't want to associate with group "A" to have to associate with them? I suspect that the vast majority of these situations are contrived by people with an axe to grind. Waste of time, money and public resources.

If I ran a private group that was told it had to accept person "B" even though person "B" wasn't wanted, I would simply shut the group down and start up a different group.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2009, 07:19 PM
The non-Christian historian Robert Kenny points out reluctantly:


Having for most of my life believed that our acceptance of equality — racial, class, gender — was the result of the overthrow of past superstitions and prejudice by reason, I was perplexed: why had the fight against slavery, and the concern for aboriginal peoples, been so overwhelmingly the province of religious? … Hume, Voltaire, and Kant saw the African — the non-European, generally — as beyond the category of human to which the European belonged; race concerned them (particularly Kant) only to the extent that it could show the superiority of the European. It was not the philosophies of Paris or Edinburgh or East Prussia who fought slavery, but the evangelical Christians and Quakers who drew their inspiration not from philosophy but from “superstitious religion”. It was from the Evangelical Revival that the loudest claims for what we now call racial equality came

(The Lamb Enters the Dreaming. Scribe 2007 p74).

antichrist
26-10-2009, 09:25 PM
As the Bible prescribes slavery what are Christians doing maybe abolishing it. Aren't Christians they aren't

Adamski
26-10-2009, 11:03 PM
As the Bible prescribes slavery what are Christians doing maybe abolishing it. Aren't Christians they aren'tThe Bible does not proscribe slavery. In some contexts it was described as conditions prevalent in the day but never advocated. A result of The fall - sin. Of course, Christians were behind the abolition of slavery, led by William Wilberforce.

Spiny Norman
27-10-2009, 05:08 AM
As the Bible prescribes slavery ...
Did you mean prescribes (which means, roughly: requires, or endorses)?
Or did you mean proscribes (which means, roughly: rejects, or forbids)?

Either way, I think you'd be wrong. I don't see how an argument can be made for either that is a slam dunk. The Bible more-or-less treats slavery as something which is a fact of life ... and it was a fact of life for most societies 2,000-4,000 years ago (which is the period that the Bible covers).

antichrist
27-10-2009, 07:14 PM
Did you mean prescribes (which means, roughly: requires, or endorses)?
Or did you mean proscribes (which means, roughly: rejects, or forbids)?

Either way, I think you'd be wrong. I don't see how an argument can be made for either that is a slam dunk. The Bible more-or-less treats slavery as something which is a fact of life ... and it was a fact of life for most societies 2,000-4,000 years ago (which is the period that the Bible covers).

Ah so the Bible is only relevant to time and place?? That is what progressives have been saying for only about 2,000 years.