Fox News poll on civil rights law

[nonlnear]

I think gender is a special case since there really are clear differences between the genders. Wikipedia suggests southerners added this to the Civil Rights Act to try to sink it which sounds plausible to me.

The hamster in your head fell off its wheel. There are clear differences between races too. It's not the "clear differences" that legitimize a form of discrimination and you know it. After all, if that were actually your standard you would be on the opposite side of the race question (unless you meant something different by "clear differences" - perhaps not morphological differences but some of the softer social differences between the genders that are vociferously denied, yet accepted with a wink and a nudge by feminists). Once you surrender unilateral consistency (as you do by admitting discrimination based on gender and not race) then the only standard is ideological fashionability, and nothing more.

Might I propose a more defensible standard (IMHO) for discrimination? Perhaps the nature of the discrimination shouldn't be the focus but rather the nature of the service, specifically the necessity of the service. Yes this is still a "soft" (i.e. socially determined) standard, but it gives a reasonably clear impetus to mandate non-discrimination for utilities, groceries, pharmacies, lodging, etc. while keeping government out of the business of shutting down Curves, Augusta, fraternities, and the like.

 

[Rainsford]

Your first mistake is assuming businesses exist because of government when it is the other way around. Governments do not create wealth they only consume and redistribute it.

That's ridiculous. Government creates an environment where businesses and individuals can work to create wealth. You're right, Government DOESN'T create wealth directly, it creates civilization, which is a major prerequisite for creating wealth.

 

[Fear No Evil]

That's ridiculous. Government creates an environment where businesses and individuals can work to create wealth. You're right, Government DOESN'T create wealth directly, it creates civilization, which is a major prerequisite for creating wealth.

Religion also plays a major role in creating a civilization. We probably wouldn't have had government today as we know it without religion.

 

[BigDH01]

The hamster in your head fell off its wheel. There are clear differences between races too. It's not the "clear differences" that legitimize a form of discrimination and you know it. After all, if that were actually your standard you would be on the opposite side of the race question (unless you meant something different by "clear differences" - perhaps not morphological differences but some of the softer social differences between the genders that are vociferously denied, yet accepted with a wink and a nudge by feminists). Once you surrender unilateral consistency (as you do by admitting discrimination based on gender and not race) then the only standard is ideological fashionability, and nothing more.

Might I propose a more defensible standard (IMHO) for discrimination? Perhaps the nature of the discrimination shouldn't be the focus but rather the nature of the service, specifically the necessity of the service. Yes this is still a "soft" (i.e. socially determined) standard, but it gives a reasonably clear impetus to mandate non-discrimination for utilities, groceries, pharmacies, lodging, etc. while keeping government out of the business of shutting down Curves, Augusta, fraternities, and the like.

http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

Some things are already excluded from the act, basically any institution not open to the general public.

I think it should be based on market efficiency. If the market is efficient enough that we can reasonably expect a competitor if a private agency decides to discriminate, then there is less justification for these sorts of laws. Of course, this ends up being pretty subjective. If a gas station in LA decides to quit serving blacks, blacks still have a large selection to choose from. If a gas station in Podunk, Kentucky decides to quit serving blacks, then there might be an issue.

Discrimination in any market that is inefficient anywhere should be forbidden imo. That would include things like private hospitals, utility companies, etc, etc. Any circumstance where the commonly used phrase "Well, let people speak with their wallets" does not really apply or is not economically feasible or desireable.

 

[nonlnear]

Some things are already excluded from the act, basically any institution not open to the general public.

I wasn't talking about the CRA. I was talking about a general rationale. It's actually quite meaningless to exclude businesses that aren't "open to the general public" as any business that excludes a subset of the general public (like Curves) is not "open to the general public". Once again it then boils down to political fashion which types of discrimination will be allowed and which will not. After all, what's the difference between a Curves gym and a Whiutes gym? (i'm looking for an a priori moral difference, not a de facto legal difference.)

I think it should be based on market efficiency.

Ideally I would be with you on this idea, but government policy is incredibly poor at defining, let alone creating or encouraging market efficiency. If I trusted a Congress to define it properly then this would work, but...

If the market is efficient enough that we can reasonably expect a competitor if a private agency decides to discriminate, then there is less justification for these sorts of laws. Of course, this ends up being pretty subjective. If a gas station in LA decides to quit serving blacks, blacks still have a large selection to choose from. If a gas station in Podunk, Kentucky decides to quit serving blacks, then there might be an issue.

Availability of competition could easily be incorporated into the standard I proposed, and in a way that would be easier to interpret legally. Courts are notoriously bad at determining market efficiency, but I don't mind trusting them to interpret a map covered with circles.

 

[BigDH01]

I wasn't talking about the CRA. I was talking about a general rationale. It's actually quite meaningless to exclude businesses that aren't "open to the general public" as any business that excludes a subset of the general public (like Curves) is not "open to the general public". Once again it then boils down to political fashion which types of discrimination will be allowed and which will not. After all, what's the difference between a Curves gym and a Whiutes gym? (i'm looking for an a priori moral difference, not a de facto legal difference.)

You could create a system that's membership-based, but it suffers from the same issues in as much as any business could distribute cards and keep a database of customers. It is probably better to make an economic argument than it is a moral one given the recognized problems with the latter.

Ideally I would be with you on this idea, but government policy is incredibly poor at defining, let alone creating or encouraging market efficiency. If I trusted a Congress to define it properly then this would work, but...

Perhaps, but it doesn't change the circumstances. As reasonable people, we can look at different markets and make a logical conclusion about their efficiency or lack thereof. Perhaps Congress is unable to do this and can only make generalized legislation. Which would we have it be? Would we rather force a gas station owner to serve someone in a highly competitive market or let a pharmacy deny someone in a market where there's almost no competition at all?

Of course, this assumes that something needs to be done at the federal level, although states would grapple with the same issue. I'm not sure if you'd want to go even more local.

Availability of competition could easily be incorporated into the standard I proposed, and in a way that would be easier to interpret legally. Courts are notoriously bad at determining market efficiency, but I don't mind trusting them to interpret a map covered with circles.

A better measure might be profitability, as it might capture more than one metric of what it means to be in an efficient market.

Of course, that's a pretty rough hypothetical and I'm not sure of its feasibility or applicability.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

The point is businesses can't choose their customers based on race. That is not a valid reason.

His reason is valid. You just pick race as your point of contention. What about the other factors that the gubment says you can't discriminate based on. Gender? Religion?

If people want to live in a free society they have to accept the good AND the bad of that freedom. That means people are free to deny service to whomever they want.

Just like if I was going to sell puppies. I wouldn't sell them to someone I knew was going to abuse them or raise them for dog fighting.
In business ultimately it is my property that I am selling and I get to choose who can purchase it regardless of their differences to me.

Put it this way. Would it be OK for a black man to refuse to sell an Obama doll to a white guy wearing a klan outfit and a carrying a can of gas anda lighter?

 

[nonlnear]

As reasonable people, we can look at different markets and make a logical conclusion about their efficiency or lack thereof.

If you believe this to be true then you are probably not talking about market efficiency at all.

Perhaps Congress is unable to do this and can only make generalized legislation. Which would we have it be? Would we rather force a gas station owner to serve someone in a highly competitive market or let a pharmacy deny someone in a market where there's almost no competition at all?

I don't see how that's the choice one would be faced with. Fuel and medicine would both most likely fall into the necessity category if necessity were the standard for precluding discrimination.

Of course, this assumes that something needs to be done at the federal level, although states would grapple with the same issue. I'm not sure if you'd want to go even more local.

I certainly wouldn't want to go local. In most matters I am against federal regulation, but in matters of human rights (which I believe this to be), I think it's hard to return to early federalism. I wouldn't mind it in principle, but it's just not going to happen. That being the case I don't mind a federal standard. However if that standard is tied to economic measures which can be tweaked by a whim of Congress and are guaranteed to be misapplied (like any Congressionally decreed definition of "efficiency" is guaranteed to be) then I am dead set against it. I am against a market efficiency standard precisely because I am a fierce believer in the protection of efficient markets.

A better measure might be profitability, as it might capture more than one metric of what it means to be in an efficient market.

Oh sweet hellspawn of Bush and Obama NO! With the country neck deep in subsidies, punitive fines and mandates in pretty much every industry you want to have a deceptively simplistic standard like profitability? Be careful what you wish for!

 

[daishi5]

That's ridiculous. Government creates an environment where businesses and individuals can work to create wealth. You're right, Government DOESN'T create wealth directly, it creates civilization, which is a major prerequisite for creating wealth.

Does government create civilization, or does civilization create government?

The two seem to spring up around the same time, so I think they are more of a mutual entity. I think a much better argument is that government enhances and stabilizes the environment for businesses to create wealth. The environment exists without government, but it is a very poor environment. The benefit of governing body is the amount of improvement it creates, and the cost of the governing body should be measured against that benefit. At least in concept.

So the question, in my mind, is the cost of the government intervention in this area worth the benefits? I would prefer that everyone was completely free in there ability to choose who to interact with. But, as others have pointed out, some people have too much control, and giving them complete freedom allows them to harm other people. Sort of an economic version of "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose." I also don't think we should pick and choose where to protect against racial discrimination. I would prefer our government sets the rules and enforces them evenly. I don't like the idea of rules being enforced when the government feels like it.

 

[BigDH01]

If you believe this to be true then you are probably not talking about market efficiency at all.

Why?

I don't see how that's the choice one would be faced with. Fuel and medicine would both most likely fall into the necessity category if necessity were the standard for precluding discrimination.

It's still quite subjective and, in large part, at the whim of lawmakers. Are cell phones necessities? Is cable? Is internet? Is it a necessity to serve you medication if there is another pharmacy 10 miles down the road? 30? Next door?

I certainly wouldn't want to go local. In most matters I am against federal regulation, but in matters of human rights (which I believe this to be), I think it's hard to return to early federalism. I wouldn't mind it in principle, but it's just not going to happen. That being the case I don't mind a federal standard. Hopwever if that standard is tied to economic measures which can be tweaked by a whim of Congress and are guaranteed to be misapplied (like any Congressionally decreed definition of "efficiency" is guaranteed to be) then I am dead set against it.

As we've seen, any measure can be tweaked by Congress. As you might decry my measure of efficiency, I can question anyone's definition of "necessity." The only solution to this is to elect capable and honest representatives, and for this, I do not hold my breath.

I am against a market efficiency standard precisely because I am a fierce believer in the protection of efficient markets.

Assuming there is some reasonable way to distinguish between those markets that are efficient and inefficient, I don't see what impact this would have. You slap regulations on those markets that are inefficient anyway and ignore those where a market solution can be found. All scenarios we describe here rely on some degree of reasonable and justifiable regulation.

Oh sweet hellspawn of Bush and Obama NO! With the country neck deep in subsidies, punitive fines and mandates in pretty much every industry you want to have a deceptively simplistic standard like profitability? Be careful what you wish for!

Using profitability to measure the efficiency of a given market is one possible solution. It is nice in the sense that it takes into account more than just the number of competitors in a given area and creates incentives such that the entities least likely to discriminate are also the ones not touched by regulation. Yes, it's not perfect, but it is simply an idea.

I'm not sure it's more simplistic than saying anyone who sells a "necessity" and lacks competition within a given area is not allowed to discriminate. There are cases where an entity has low margins from merely the threat of competition. A profitability measure would allow those entities to discriminate knowing that a competitor would arise where a necessity or competition measure might not.

Drawbacks, of course, being nonprofits and what we might use as a measure of normal profit or economic rent. We would have to do some comparative analysis there, which should be fairly easy in markets that are actually competitive. If there is little comparative information available, it's a good sign that the market is inefficient and should have discrimination laws in place.

 

[Munky]

Private businesses should be able to serve or refuse service to anyone for any reason. Enough of the nanny state BS.

 

[Amused]

Why would you want to support a business that doesn't want to serve you because of any reason?

On the same note, why would you want to force an employer to employ you and work for a boss that doesn't like you?

I never understood the civil rights bill for this reason. Forcing people to do things they don't want to do is hardly a way to change hearts and minds. Quite the contrary, it breeds resentment and more hate.

I do not think the civil rights bill did a single thing to change or diminish racism in this country. You cannot change hearts and minds with laws any more than you can enforce morality with laws.

Hearts and minds are changed by education and experience, not force.

edit: Before someone throws the pictures above at me let me explain that I would also oppose laws that force businesses to discriminate. The signs above were the result of Jim Crow laws forcing businesses to provide "separate but equal" (ha) facilities. Jim Crow was as unconstitutional as the civil rights law. Government has no right to tell private businesses who they may, or may not trade with.

Repeal the civil rights bill and I guarantee you will NOT see a return to "whites only" as any business that does so will be shunned by the majority.

THAT is how hearts and minds change. Not laws.

 

[Atheus]

Absolutely disagree. This is the failed logic of the liberal. That business is granted operation by the government. That the rulers "allow" you to operate in return for their "protection". Sounds like a criminal mob, doesn't it?

Hang on, are you suggesting that a viable economic system can exist eternally without any form of govornment in place? Were you asleep during that massive banking crisis? And how would your business operate without a proper monetary system anyway? Barter?

 

[Linflas]

Why would you want to support a business that doesn't want to serve you because of any reason?

On the same note, why would you want to force an employer to employ you and work for a boss that doesn't like you?

I never understood the civil rights bill for this reason. Forcing people to do things they don't want to do is hardly a way to change hearts and minds. Quite the contrary, it breeds resentment and more hate.

I do not think the civil rights bill did a single thing to change or diminish racism in this country. You cannot change hearts and minds with laws any more than you can enforce morality with laws.

Hearts and minds are changed by education and experience, not force.

edit: Before someone throws the pictures above at me let me explain that I would also oppose laws that force businesses to discriminate. The signs above were the result of Jim Crow laws forcing businesses to provide "separate but equal" (ha) facilities. Jim Crow was as unconstitutional as the civil rights law. Government has no right to tell private businesses who they may, or may not trade with.

Repeal the civil rights bill and I guarantee you will NOT see a return to "whites only" as any business that does so will be shunned by the majority.

THAT is how hearts and minds change. Not laws.

A lot of the Jim Crow laws were passed to force businesses by law to do what many would not do on their own since it did not make for good business.

 

[Atheus]

Questions for all those who support the right of busineses to discriminate on racial grounds - did you support apartheid in South Africa? Do you believe the racist violence was worth it to protect the right of white people to exclude black people from positions of power?

 

[nonlnear]

Why?

Because the degree to which a market mimics the outcome of a perfectly competitive market isn't a value judgment. There is room for disagreement on where the threshold ought to be, but once you get into the trenches and start admitting that reasonable people disagree on what constitutes efficiency you've tossed the economic definitions out the window and politicized the game.

It's still quite subjective and, in large part, at the whim of lawmakers. Are cell phones necessities? Is cable? Is internet? Is it a necessity to serve you medication if there is another pharmacy 10 miles down the road? 30? Next door?

As we've seen, any measure can be tweaked by Congress. As you might decry my measure of efficiency, I can question anyone's definition of "necessity." The only solution to this is to elect capable and honest representatives, and for this, I do not hold my breath.

Of course it's subjective. I never claimed otherwise. The major advantage is that it doesn't rely on complex metrics which are inevitably subject to manipulation (as any government mandated definition of market efficiency would be). The beauty of this simplicity is not ideological (after all, we both agree the standard is still essentially political), but the transparency. Just like any other facet of government incompetence or corruption, if you can't eliminate it, at least try to make it as transparent as possible.

Assuming there is some reasonable way to distinguish between those markets that are efficient and inefficient, I don't see what impact this would have. You slap regulations on those markets that are inefficient anyway and ignore those where a market solution can be found. All scenarios we describe here rely on some degree of reasonable and justifiable regulation.

I've already postulated that there is a complex problem legislating efficinecy. Now take a step back and consider the even bigger problem of defining a market. This is FAR from trivial, as the occasional article in the Economist attests. Once you chew on exactly what the problems are with "solving" this legislatively I suspect everyone except the monarchists would cringe at any attempts to introduce broad legislation aimed at determining market efficiency. That term consists of two words which I want my legislators as far away from as possible.

Using profitability to measure the efficiency of a given market is one possible solution. It is nice in the sense that it takes into account more than just the number of competitors in a given area and creates incentives such that the entities least likely to discriminate are also the ones not touched by regulation. Yes, it's not perfect, but it is simply an idea.

I was about to tear into this but realized I wasn't sure exactly what you were proposing. Are you saying that you would consider high profits to be an indication of an efficient market, or an inefficient one?

 

[BigDH01]

Because the degree to which a market mimics the outcome of a perfectly competitive market isn't a value judgment. There is room for disagreement on where the threshold ought to be, but once you get into the trenches and start admitting that reasonable people disagree on what constitutes efficiency you've tossed the economic definitions out the window and politicized the game.

As you do when you decide what constitutes a necessity.

Of course it's subjective. I never claimed otherwise. The major advantage is that it doesn't rely on complex metrics which are inevitably subject to manipulation (as any government mandated definition of market efficiency would be). The beauty of this simplicity is not ideological (after all, we both agree the standard is still essentially political), but the transparency. Just like any other facet of government incompetence or corruption, if you can't eliminate it, at least try to make it as transparent as possible.

I agree about transparency, I just don't know how one is more transparent than the other. They are both going to rely on some formula of competition and availability.

I've already postulated that there is a complex problem legislating efficinecy. Now take a step back and consider the even bigger problem of defining a market. This is FAR from trivial, as the occasional article in the Economist attests. Once you chew on exactly what the problems are with "solving" this legislatively I suspect everyone except the monarchists would cringe at any attempts to introduce broad legislation aimed at determining market efficiency. That term consists of two words which I want my legislators as far away from as possible.

Perhaps, but you are going to find just as many opponents (and perhaps justly) when you take a step back and ask the government to legislate what private actors should be forced to sell in the name of being a necessity. It is just as invasive for the government to demand you trade something you own for cash because they deemed what you own a necessity to the other person. And in either case, there has been an intrusion into the market.

I was about to tear into this but realized I wasn't sure exactly what you were proposing. Are you saying that you would consider high profits to be an indication of an efficient market, or an inefficient one?

High profits (that is, above normal) are a measure of inefficiency. The issue, of course, is deciding what normal profits are for a particular market.

 

[Red Dawn]

If people want to live in a free society they have to accept the good AND the bad of that freedom. That means people are free to deny service to whomever they want.

So you'd be OK with an owner of an Apartment Complex only renting units to white people?

 

[herm0016]

any private business should be able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason.

are you all saying that as a business I must hire everyone who applies for a job and not interview them or test them because i cant discriminate based on their strength, or based on how intelligent they are?

the government discriminates in many contracts they issue, many times the businesses must be minority owned to get contracts. this is pure discrimination.

 

[BigDH01]

any private business should be able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason.

are you all saying that as a business I must hire everyone who applies for a job and not interview them or test them because i cant discriminate based on their strength, or based on how intelligent they are?

the government discriminates in many contracts they issue, many times the businesses must be minority owned to get contracts. this is pure discrimination.

Although I don't agree with governmental preferential selection, I don't think anyone is saying you have to hire someone stupid or weak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifications

 

[Thump553]

Well now I understand more clearly what taking America back means. Not a pretty picture-all those wishing for return to the Jim Crow days. Probably a bunch of good Christians too-at least on Sunday mornings.

 

[Anarchist420]

I'm part of the 72%. Businesses should have freedom of association and property rights should be respected, not infringed.

 

[nonlnear]

As you do when you decide what constitutes a necessity.

Yes but I'm not hiding behind a charade of economic jargon. Not that you are intending it to be a charade, but it will inevitably become one when translated into convoluted legislation.

I agree about transparency, I just don't know how one is more transparent than the other. They are both going to rely on some formula of competition and availability.

You can easily block out large swathes of the economy as necessities (or otherwise precluded from discriminating) without delving into formulas at all. Food, clothing, medicine, lodging and housing, government services, and every utility provisioned either over a state provided/regulated common carrier, or any utility provided within a framework of regulated prices. Water and sewer/septic services might have to be put in separately to cover some special areas where there is no utility infrastructure and services are trucked in. I would throw in fuel as well. Drafted into legalese that could easily be down in less than two pages without a single formula.

Perhaps, but you are going to find just as many opponents (and perhaps justly) when you take a step back and ask the government to legislate what private actors should be forced to sell in the name of being a necessity.

I don't think the list I just gave one paragraph ago would face much opposition at all. Granted expanding the list could be controversial (and maybe I forgot some things), but covering the basics is pretty straightforward.

It is just as invasive for the government to demand you trade something you own for cash because they deemed what you own a necessity to the other person.

That's not what is happening at all. There is nothing confiscatory about it because only things that are for sale are being demanded to be sold.

And in either case, there has been an intrusion into the market.

Yes, but the intrusion is an act of making the market more closely resemble a competitive one. After all, most acts of discrimination based on protected categories are examples of irrational behavior (in the economic sense).

High profits (that is, above normal) are a measure of inefficiency. The issue, of course, is deciding what normal profits are for a particular market.

Yes, and that's a question I never want a legislator to try to answer. Some things always make for bad law. You might as well just go straight to a command economy once you have unilateral decrees of what constitutes a reasonable profit margin.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'm OK with government telling private business what they can and can't do in certain instances. Telling them not to act like racist assholes is one of those instances.

 

[BigDH01]

Yes but I'm not hiding behind a charade of economic jargon. Not that you are intending it to be a charade, but it will inevitably become one when translated into convoluted legislation.

It all becomes convoluted legislation.

You can easily block out large swathes of the economy as necessities (or otherwise precluded from discriminating) without delving into formulas at all. Food, clothing, medicine, lodging and housing, government services, and every utility provisioned either over a state provided/regulated common carrier, or any utility provided within a framework of regulated prices. Water and sewer/septic services might have to be put in separately to cover some special areas where there is no utility infrastructure and services are trucked in. I would throw in fuel as well. Drafted into legalese that could easily be down in less than two pages without a single formula.

Even without taking competition into consideration (meaning you have to sell your necessity even if a competitor sells the same thing next door), you are left deciding what items are actually necessities. If you just include something like gas, then you are preventing players in what amounts to an extremely competitive market from engaging in discrimination, even though in many places that would be a market most suitable for it (where the best argument for a market solution can be made). I guess the issue I face is that I see that a lot of individuals on this board provide a market justification for discrimination. There seems to be this constant belief that if a firm discriminates, patrons will simply go to a competitor or open a new firm, as if there is perfect mobility. Of course, this isn't the case. This leads me to formulate market-based solutions based on the efficiency of the market, as efficient markets appear to be the assumption made for the justification of discrimination (for many, anyway).

I don't think the list I just gave one paragraph ago would face much opposition at all. Granted expanding the list could be controversial (and maybe I forgot some things), but covering the basics is pretty straightforward.

The initial list is going to be controversial. And any subsequent modification will be hotly contested, and there will be modifications. And the moral argument for discrimination (personal choice) is eliminated in either of our scenarios.

That's not what is happening at all. There is nothing confiscatory about it because only things that are for sale are being demanded to be sold.

Your assumption here is that the items are for sale. The seller has the ultimate choice as to what is for sale. If the seller chooses to sell to black people, but not to white people, forcing them to sell to white people is eliminating the seller's choice. It may not be confiscatory as the seller is still getting money, but I never suggested it was. I was merely pointing out that it is still government intervention on an individual's freedom of choice.

Yes, but the intrusion is an act of making the market more closely resemble a competitive one. After all, most acts of discrimination based on protected categories are examples of irrational behavior (in the economic sense).

Maybe competitive, but not more free. It also doesn't contain the market mechanism of reward and punishment... punishing irrational actors, even if it is for their own benefit.

Yes, and that's a question I never want a legislator to try to answer. Some things always make for bad law. You might as well just go straight to a command economy once you have unilateral decrees of what constitutes a reasonable profit margin.

I'm not trying to confiscate profits or punish those who make them, merely using them as a metric to measure the efficiency of a particular market. If the market appears inefficient, enforce current anti-discrimination laws as the efficiency can be used as a proxy as to how much competition exists and how likely it is that the discriminated can create a new firm. That's hardly a command economy, at least not moreso than your scenario in which the government has decided what products are necessities and force private entities to sell those to anyone who can purchase them. Ultimately, you and I are favoring the same regulation, just differing as to who or how it will be applied.