Sunday, July 22, 2012

I Discriminate: I help the handicapped, I am kind to old people and give my seat to them and to pregnant women.


This is a response to a letter from a dear friend who is an unmistakable  minority where he lives (like me)...

....Yes, I've dealt with discrimination all my life. Once I decided to seriously study the use, and not just spout off platitudes, it took me over ten years of study to finally realize that the only answer to this question is the one that a understanding of private property offers. Other solutions cause us to be subjective and then hypocritical. 

I think if you consider this deeply, you will see why....

People who think they are not sexist or racist will say, "I dream of a world where people can be judged not by their skin color or sex, but by their merits.” They claim that want everyone treated equally. Then they go on, in the next breath, and say, “But special considerations for some people!” 


That’s incredibly subjective and hypocritical. One great example is "Women's Only" cars on trains and subways... Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with "Women's Only" cars... But I practice discrimination so it doesn't bother me. I don't claim that "everyone is the same and we are all equal." 


We're not.

The ones who claim to want everyone treated equally but are often subjective about what that means. They claim to want to use morality as a guide, but fail to see how that, too, is totally subjective. 


I raise a handicapped daughter and don't want people to be treated equal. I want special considerations for some. I love how Disneyland allows handicapped people to go directly to the front of the line and ride the rides. Is this discrimination? Yes! And I thank Disneyland for it. 


Also, I want to decide, for myself, how and to who those considerations should be applied. For example, I like having elevators and facilities for the handicapped; I think it is good there are men's and women's restrooms; I think pregnant women, old people and the handicapped should be treated with deference, kindness and respect and be given seats on the trains and buses, (I'm old fashioned) etc. 


Even though we should give up our seats to handicapped, old or pregnant (and others) do we need laws to force kindness or morality? No. And, by the way, just how does a law that forces us to, say, give up our seats to old people promote equality? I think that is forced age discrimination, isn't it?


I also think forced equality is bad for business... 

Let's be ridiculous for a moment and look at what anti-discrimination laws that force equality in employment would do to professional sports! Take the NBA (please!) Can you imagine having your favorite basketball team staffed with people that represent the cultural make-up of their "home" market? Imagine the new and improved Los Angeles Lakers; two white guys, one black guy, and one each of an Hispanic, short-legged Japanese who can’t jump, a great Jewish athlete (good luck finding one of those), two women, one gay and one lesbian, a transexual, a transvestite, a Democrat, and a hair-dresser (I can't specify sex of hair dresser as that would be discriminatory!). 


It would be wonderful. Probably would draw in as large the crowds the freak shows do at Ringling Brothers Circus!


Nope. I guess that won't do.

The only way to handle this discrimination "problem" is the private property vs. public property philosophy of Libertarianism. Libertarianism (or Anarcho-Capitalism like me) stands up for the free rights of all people.

"...Libertarianism champions equal rights. It champions the person and the potential of every person to use liberty to the fullest. Libertarians would NEVER have authored Jim Crow laws or denied the vote on the grounds of race or denied equal access to public facilities depending on one's race. Libertarians have for decades preached against the drug war, which severely discriminates against blacks and browns. The prisons are filled disproportionately with people of color. Libertarians have stood staunchly against wars initiated by the U.S. against people of color and fought to a large extent by American soldiers of color..."

In this Libertarian philosophy, private property is respected. You can do what you want with your private property as long as you do not commit aggression against me. Not allowing people in your private business, for whatever reason, is your choice. That you do not allow some people onto your premises is not, in any sense of the word, aggression against anyone. 


In fact, if you stop and think about it, people who want to use government power to force their way onto you are the ones committing aggression.

I don't have any right to order you to associate with people you don't want to on your private property. Nor do you have the right to tell me how to run my business or who I should allow as my customers. 

We don’t need laws against stupidity or bad business decisions. You can't outlaw stupidity. It won't work.

A public property (paid for by taxes) is a different story. Those places must be open to everyone regardless of race, creed or color.(But we all know the public government discriminates all the time). 

If a restaurants policy of, say, "No dark skinned people," was so odious that it scared away (or pissed off) all their customers (even ones without dark skin) what would happen to that restaurant? It would probably go bankrupt very quickly, right? The free market would handle the issue. 


I don't have dark skin and if I saw a sign that said, "No dark skinned people," I wouldn't patronize the place at all (I've been discriminated against many times in my life and I have friends who are gay, lesbians, women, men, white, transvestites, transexual, Indians (from India), Bangladesh, Germans, Kiwis, Aussies, blacks, etc. etc....) and I don’t particularly care for it, but I will not ask that government force people to do something they don’t want to do.

If I saw a sign that said, "No darkies!" I certainly wouldn't want my friends to go in there and would wonder if they weren’t nuts if they insisted upon doing so.... BUT! I don't think that the government can pass laws on who you associate with or laws against stupidity.... 


The more laws we have, the worse things are getting (current situation should be proof enough of that fact!)

Now, in Japan, some people who scream "Discrimination" are in a huff because the Japanese women's team (Australia women’s basketball team too) had to fly to the Olympics by economy class while the men’s teams flew business... Well, that is terrible sexism! BY THE FOLKS SCREAMING DISCRIMINATION! I thought they wanted people treated by their merits? What is this contradiction whereby suddenly now they think the women should be treated differently because they are women? Uh, don't look now, but they are now contradicting themselves!

Why did the women fly economy class while the men flew business class?

Simple: they were treated equally and on their merits. 


Let me explain: The Olympics are a for profit organization (in spite of the nationalist brainwashing you receive about this event every few years). In just about every country, there is a privately run organization, that runs their own "Olympics" (kind of like a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise). The owners of the Olympic games know from advice given by their Madison Avenue Marketing agencies that to make money, they need to promote statism and nationalism. It's an old, tried and true formula. 


In Japanese case, the men's soccer team has a professional soccer league, the Japan Soccer Association (JSA) involved in the money making. That men's league get's 20,000 ~ 40,000 people paying to come and see their games. The games are televised. Some players play in European leagues. They have big name sponsors, money and all players are professionals. 


The women's league? Well, now, they lose money every year. They almost went bankrupt in 2000 and are now subsidized by the JSA. The women's games have a hard time with attendance. They might have a few hundred fans in attendance (non-paying mostly), no TV, no sponsors and no professionals...

Now, in a privately run for profit organization, why should the women be treated differently from the men? If we treat them differently then that is acknowledgement of their differences... Hence sexism (polite booing here, please!) 

If the Olympic committee were run by taxes, then I could see people complaining, but it is not (thank God for that!)

See what I mean?

Team A makes lots of money. They fly 1st class. Team B loses lots of money and is subsidized by an organization that lives off the profits of Team A. Team B flies economy class. What's the problem with that?

To claim, in this case, that Team B should fly business class, the same as Team A is not fair and is discrimination.

I can't see how these people complain about a sign that shows "discrimination" but then, a second later, say that women should be treated differently. That's fantastically hypocritical.

If this were a government run organization, paid for by our taxes, they can't do that. They are a private organization paid for by private investments and sponsors: they can do what they want with their money and their property and their employees.... The same as a privately run restaurant can. No?

After all, exercising freedom of choice is exercising discrimination.

I exercise discrimination: I help the handicapped, I am kind to old people and give my seat to them and to pregnant women, I like to go to Sushi restaurants and see a Japanese sushi chef. I like to go to Italian restaurants and see, not a Japanese, but an Italian cooking (trust I will ask where the chef is from or will have checked before I arrived).... on and on... I don't mind it if people want to enjoy their space and I don't think we should force people to associate with those they do not wish to.

I certainly don't care if someone is gay, lesbian, transsexual, Indian, black, Hispanic (though I am quite partial to Japanese women!) Oops! There I go discriminating again....

These people who claim discrimination are not consistent in their thoughts because they are confused on private property. How your mom and dad run their place of business is up to them and no one has the right to tell you or them how to act or what you can and cannot do inside of your own house or in your place of business.

See what I mean?

36 comments:

Andrew Joseph said...

Yeah, Mike... I see exactly what you mean. AS LONG AS those shops or restaurants are NOT breaking the law by barring certain types of customers - then that's the way it is. That doesn't make it right, in my opinion, but that's the way it is. I think NOT doing something about a social injustice is wrong.
I think that if countries did not stand up against the Nazi's (and should have earlier) the world would have been a worse place. Hell, the US didn't get involved against the Nazis until they were attacked by Japan through their protectorate Hawaii nearly two years after Canada, New Zealand the Aussies, India et al got involved... we were under the Great Britain banner, but we all had our own government to decide if we should get involved in a the war.
yes... we want some people to be treated special... like the handicapped... but if you think about it, we aren't asking others to treat them differently... we are asking them to be allowed the same access to elevators, buildings and such. It's not a special consideration... it's making up for not having consideration for ALL of the citizens or people or the world.
I agree that many 'specialized' businesses will find it harder to make money and survive... but not really... there are plenty of people out there who want to eat at a "White's Only" restaurant - how else to figure out how the US South was able to keep in business for decades?
But you are right... we are hypocritical. We do want special considerations - but not really. We, all people, only want to be treated with respect and dignity. The problem is to determine what is a socially acceptable level of respect and dignity, and I think governments all over the world are struggling to determine that... and it is constantly evolving.
I think that barring certain people - like troublesome foreigners - is a step back into the dark ages of human existence. Troublesome foreigners are NOT okay, but troublesome Japanese are? That's ignorant. But yes... it's their business and their rules, and they can set themselves up to succeed or fail any way they wish... but that doesn't make it socially or morally acceptable. I know you and I have have both faced our fair share of prejudice (thanks for writing this piece, by the way). I am not judging YOU or Japan on this... but I do think that people as a whole need to start questioning moral rights and wrongs as a way to get ahead as a society. Some questions are (me being judgmental) idiotic... but who am I to decide? Well... my morals are based on a societal norm. Just because it's NOT illegal to do something doesn't mean everyone should do it. It takes right-minded people (prejudiced against left-minded, I suppose) to get a feel for the views of society... and then act.
But I can see how that would be a problem.
- part 1

Andrew Joseph said...

part 2
Germany in post-WW1 days was ripe for the fanatical national socialism that spawned the Nazi party. If someone comes along and promises you that your country should be strong again, people listen. That their problems were the cause of homosexuals, intellectuals, Jews and gypsies - damn right - kill'em all.
What do you do? The Nazi party came into power and would have stayed in power if they had not invaded Russia in the winter. Stupid astrologer!
But back to the point... we are NOT discriminating by helping the handicapped, elderly, pregnant women et al. We are merely treating them with respect. That's not discrimination. That's common-sense. To treat everyone like you would want to be treated. Do you know how many people gave ME a seat when I was carrying my baby son around on the train - ZERO! Is that right? Well... if I was a woman, I would have got a seat.
It's NOT right. People who need a helping hand - whether male, female, able-bodied or otherwise, jew, black, brown, yellow, white, catholic, protestant, muslim, buddhist or whatever - who the hell cares. Everyone should be treated or at least be allowed the opportunity to common dignity and respect. Caring.
I think the soccer example is a disgrace. Fly everyone equally. Treat everyone equally,
But we, as a society do not.
We have a ways to go.
But still... if people want to run their business a certain way - that is their right, as long as it's not against any law (which are social and moral laws created by governments and society) - then as a privately owned business, go head.
But... if one can do it, so can others, and others... and pretty soon some thinks it would be a good idea if there's a train car for troublesome foreigners... next stop Auschwitz. It happened once, it could happen again. Those that forget the last are doomed to repeat - or something like that.
We need to better ourselves as a society, and at least question those who would seek to brink us back to a darker time.

Bill said...

i'm a little confused so set me straight. i live in the states and am only talking about things that happen here. on most levels i agree with the statement, "How your mom and dad run their place of business is up to them and no one has the right to tell you or them how to act or what you can and cannot do inside of your own house or in your place of business." But in an earlier blog you said, and I AM NOT quoting, what goes on in your house is your business, unless you are beating your wife and in that case, that's against the law." Something to that nature. So, there are laws made by well, the government, federal, county, state, city that has made this law. but what if i want to beat my wife? how about if i go out in my front yard and take my gun and do some target practice? it's my house. my personal property. what if i like to have thursday nite pedophilia nite at my bar?

what i am getting down to is that it doesn't seem so cut and dry. or, maybe it is. i really don't know.

mikeintokyorogers said...

Thanks Andrew,
I appreciate the input. About Nazi Germany, no countries did not stand up to them until Poland. Before that Germany annexed and reoccupied several territories that were Germany for centuries. Poland wouldn't allow German reunification (due to UK & French guarantees) and so they went to war. I think your understanding of the why's and what for's of WWII are too simplistic. Refer to: "‪Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War‬
"
.
I also think that your definition of discrimination is too narrow. "The Case for Discrimination". That the sign was not racist. Now, that a minority person who has lived here and whom I deeply respect has brought it up again, I will show you all why is is completely ignorant and foolish to say, "Are troublesome Japanese OK?" No. But Japanese don't read English, just as foreigners ignore Japanese signs. Point of fact There is not an establishment in Japan today that doesn't have this sign near the door: "暴力団禁止". It says, "No Gangs" No, we can get anal retentive and go into the definition of gangs here, but everyone knows what this means. And they are not talking about foreigners (those signs, at the few places I've seen them, are in English, Chinese and Korean).
About questioning moral rights and wrongs. Yes. Let's do that. Let's talk about the morality of bombing and killing brown skinned people in the ME by NATO forces (including Canada and the USA, of course) in Iraq (more than 1 million), Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen: "Obama Starts War Number 6: Begins Bombing Somalia".
OK, what was that people were complaining about how a restaurant in Tokyo doesn't wnat to serve troublesome gangs of people?
Also, Andrew, my friend, you need to read up on Weimar republic and why that happened and not the BS history we were taught in schools...

"...and pretty soon some thinks it would be a good idea if there's a train car for troublesome foreigners... next stop Auschwitz...?" Really? Psst: Don't look now, but all Tokyo area trains and subways have instituted "Women only" cars... I guess, if we are to believe your conjecture, we have to abolish those. As the next step is Auschwitz? Andrew san, care to explain how this could occur?






and, how ALL Japanese restaurants do have

Anonymous said...

"it is clear that discrimination on the part of individuals, but of course not the state, is part of our birthright of liberty.


If not, coercive bisexuality would be the logical implication of the anti-discrimination movement. Why? Well, male heterosexuals despicably discriminate against half the human race as bed/sex/marriage partners: all other men. Nor can female heterosexuals plead innocence against this dread charge; they, too, abjure half of their fellow creatures in this regard. Can male homosexuals deflect this deadly indictment? No, they, too, refuse to have anything to do with all females in such a context. Similarly, female homosexuals, lesbians, rotten creatures that they are, also avoid entangling alliances of this sort with all men, again, half the human race. No, it is the bisexuals, and only the bisexuals, who are entirely innocent of discrimination of this sort. They are the only decent people in the entire sexual spectrum to refrain from this evil practice. (We now disregard the fact that bisexuals also make invidious comparisons based on beauty, age, sense of humor, etc.) Therefore, if we really opposed discrimination in matters of the heart, we would all embrace bi-sexuality. Since we do not, the logical implication is that we should be forced to do so. For, to hang back from this conclusion is to give not only tacit but active approval to discriminatory practices, surely one of the worst things in the politically correct panoply." -- W. Block
(I never had thought of it this way, but he's correct. This changed my thinking!) - D. L.

mikeintokyorogers said...

Bill! Good question!
Libertarian philosophy would state that private property allows you to do with what is yours as you see fit as long as you do not commit aggression against others (me). Now, beating your wife on your property? If she is not my sister or friend, etc. It is none of my business... But! As a fellow human being it might fall onto my duty to come to the aid of someone in danger or distress. I'd guess that 50% of all people would ignore the situation. The other 50% would call the police or get involved. I'm not sure. I am one to refrain from calling the police because I fear that, if I did, they'd come to your house and might shoot and kill you merely over a very heated argument that sounded like a hellacious fight but wasn't... Perhaps this can shed more light on the subject: "State or Private Law Society".

Anonymous said...

Aaron Egon Moser says, "Why does the media not talk about the fact that Universities discriminate against Asian students in affirmative action programs? Asian applicants are given negative penalty points on their entrance exams because they are Asian. If that is not racist nothing is. P.S. public universities do this to."

Anonymous said...

Let’s see if I can get out of the penalty box now that my comments are being banned. And I was totally going to write a multi-pronged rebuttal, but I’m honestly feeling too lazy to do it now. So I’ll just touch upon one or two aspects.

I recently had the good fortune of reading a lengthy book review on recent works about morality (paywalled- http://harpers.org/archive/2012/07/0083981). I’m very thankful, because from now on I’ll never lose any time trying to see if any moral precepts or laws can ever be “proved” in any way, an insight I didn’t learn during my liberal arts education. Philosophers have argued over this, but the consensus is pretty much that morality is completely subjective from the point of view of truth. Thus, I don’t think there is any way for you to “prove” that you are more right than I am when it comes to my support of anti-discrimination laws….

The idea that the laws of supply and demand and self-interest ultimately may limit discrimination is very tenuous. First of all there are so many examples that demonstrate how efficient markets simply do not exist anywhere, including such that discrimination against minorities would be prevented. Can you give me a real world example rather than a hypothetical one in the letter? I also don’t see such neat clear lines and correlations as you do when it comes to merit and socioeconomic success. You have a tendency to want to simplify things (in my view) when life isn’t simple or clear-cut. Second of all people don’t act in purely rational terms from an economic perspective, and in fact the whole field of behavioral finance is focused on studying these things. So when I read about the supposed wisdom or the self-correcting mechanism of free market economics, I tend to roll my eyes and think “what a bunch of bullocks”. Markets are completely amoral, but you present them as kind of moral force in their own right.

Anonymous said...

Aaron, Penalty Box here -- the media does talk about the issue of alleged discrimination of Asian-descent students. There are lots and lots of articles/ blog posts if you google it. What is true is that this issue hasn’t gotten a lot of attention as others, at least until now. I’d venture that one reason for this is that – surprise surprise - those most likely to directly benefit from this issue (Asians) haven’t raised a ruckus about it. Society doesn’t change in a vacuum and you need political pressure to change attitudes, laws, and behavior. Just like by saying the treatment of the Japanese women’s soccer team was sexist can move the needle in a small way… So from that standpoint I don’t feel at all sorry for these students. They need to stand up for themselves; that’s the way it has always worked. Also, if you read some of the articles there are some interesting perspectives on how merit is measured. It’s not so clear-cut. But once again, as I mentioned before, merit is at best, just an ideal.

mikeintokyorogers said...

"Thus, I don’t think there is any way for you to “prove” that you are more right than I am when it comes to my support of anti-discrimination laws…. " Absolutely and you, yours. That's why private property is the only answer: It is the only cut and dry black and white: everything ese is subjective.
As far as examples, I own one and do marketing for another. One is called iwine.jp... It is an online wine ordering service. Guess what? We have our service in English too. In a country where less than 3% of the public speak English, there's your example for you. (Psst: We've pretty much sewn up the English speaker in Japan market)... I also helped set up the Domino Pizza English service which now takes 100% of the foreign market in Japan. Your examples are from books and conjecture, mine are real world. ... These are facts. You can roll your eyes all you want now... PS: I've asked you before, write your own blog. Quit wasting my time on answering your one, always long, and confused and convoluted comments. I just blew both of your out of the water completely. PS: Instead of book reviews, I suggest reading books. I read two a week... Want to read more.

mikeintokyorogers said...

I mean, 100% of the foreigners ordering pizza online in Japan. Why d know this? We were the first and are still the only one offering the service. The free market answered a need for a tiny minority. That's as good an example as you can get. https://www.dominos.jp/eng/

mikeintokyorogers said...

Aaron Egon Moser writes: "Lets get real here people. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 lets private clubs discriminate by Race. They could make getting membership as easy as getting a Costco Card and that would be legal. Have you ever heard of a case like that? If you can find one Restaurant that does this today I will pay you one dollar signed by me. Hell if you can find a case in the last Thirty years I will pay you one dollar. If you can do it in 24 hours I will pay you 5 Dollars. It has to be a legal case not one that was later declared illegal by a court or police. Good Luck!"

mikeintokyorogers said...

Anonymous at 8:28... Sorry but this makes no sense at all: " What is true is that this issue hasn’t gotten a lot of attention as others, at least until now. I’d venture that one reason for this is that – surprise surprise - those most likely to directly benefit from this issue (Asians) haven’t raised a ruckus about it." Really? With logic like this then how is it possible that there was any complaints about "No Black" policies in the 50s? The whites are claimed to be the ones who "benefitted" from it and they owned the media.... In your logic, then there would have been no complaints... Why would he people who benefit make a ruckus? That makes zero sense.

Anonymous said...

I'll take it down as your being in a bad mood. I did not write anything offensive or rude and you obviously don't need to answer my questions (let alone approve them) if you think they are so stupid. I made substantive points. Greenspan himself thought that bankers would self-regulate as it would be in their own best interests. Look where that go us - a total disaster. On the merit issue, I'm basically saying its not a fair world.

Also, that book review is much more than some quaint summary - its a long detailed discussion of several books and brings in a lot of additional information and analysis. It's more like an essay. Harpers is not USA Today.
Thanks

Anonymous said...

Marc Sheffield writes: "The answer to the question is that "sexism", like racism, was never intended to be fair to both sexes. According to Marxist thinker Marcuse, when the playing field isn't level, you have to tilt it the other way IN FAVOUR OF THE OPPRESSED SIDE, to achieve "equality" (yeah, I know, but that's Marxist "logic" for ya). It's INTENDED to be biased. That way, you get a level playing field. (And if you don't follow that reasoning, you're a capitalist pig, an enemy of the workers, and a running dog for the ruling class)."

Anonymous said...

Mike, it’s Asians who would benefit from raising the issue of discrimination. That is what I said, inelegantly perhaps. If they raised the issue, then they could get affect change. There are obviously non-Asians who are offended or dislike the policies but the ones directly affected need to mobilize.

mikeintokyorogers said...

Anonymus 8:51: I proved your points wrong, now you want to talk about banking regulations? This is to presume that there are no banking regulations so we had a financial crisis? Wake up! The media brainwashing has you under it's spell. We have never had a free market in banking since 1913. Now, Greenspan and his scum ilk claim "We need more regulation?" Can't you tell when you are being bullshitted? We have the most regulated industry in the world. This is the excuse the government uses to deflect blame off itself and the FED for disastrous policies that have ruined the US economy. Or you you actually think the government would admit that they messed it up and say that "our regulations were bad"? Yeah... And 9/11 was done by Saudi Hijackers organized by a guy in a cave in Afghanistan. The US economy is so over regulated that it has lead to all this corruption: "Peter Schiff on Why the American Economy Is Broken – and What to Do About It".

Anonymous said...

The idea that banking is not regulated enough ignores facts: "Perhaps it is worth a reminder that, while every effort by the Central-Banker-In-Chief and his political play-things to proclaim free-market omnipotence in stark contrast to the wholesale manipulation of any and every market and macro-economic lever possible, Adam Smith some 250 years ago pointed out the inevitable unintended consequences of such grand conceit.".

Marc Sheffner said...

On the social and political changes in inter-war Germany, I recommend von Mises' short but dense "Omnipotent Government" (1944) - free pdf download!

Mises lived through that period. His book has a different point of view from "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War". Mises' view: while the war could have and should have been avoided if alternatives to the fascist/communist "choice" had been more widely known and debated, once war became inevitable, other countries were right to fight, for self-preservation and the preservation of civilization. He wanted the Nazis completely smashed, and castigated the Allies for dithering for too long.

mikeintokyorogers said...

Marc! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! That's right. That is one of, if not thee. best on what happened in Germany.... AND it also points out clearly what happens when government's are left in charge of dictating what is right and wrong (morality wise). Everyone, just read the preface and get a good lesson!
Once again, thanks!

http://mises.org/books/og.pdf

Anonymous said...

Andrew Joseph wrote, "AS LONG AS those shops or restaurants are NOT breaking the law by barring certain types of customers"

Man, no offense but, I think you're oblivious to reality, as are many People.

I was too once.

Then I started taking a "minority" out for dinner.

Let me tell you, the discrimination that takes place, I guess you could call it "under the table"... and it's insidious... and No Law can stop it.

I imagine it takes place in Japan too.
I had some Japanese guy try to point out the differences in all the Asian Peoples around him.
The guy had a hard time understanding that I couldn't see one lick of difference between the whole lot,... but he sure could.

Some of the subtle underhanded not-so-obvious discrimination that takes place everyday in many places, while disgusting and basically unpreventable, could all be made a thing of the past If People were allowed to legally discriminate openly.
Most "majority" People are unaware of these things, imho.

Yeesh, we'd both be quite happy to avoid those places if they were legally allowed to point out to the public their position towards us.

Andrew Joseph wrote, "I think NOT doing something about a social injustice is wrong."

Sometimes that "something" is the wrong thing to do, Even If it - seems - like the right thing to do.
Also, the key word is, "social". Somehow private property got confused with the idea of "social"... as if there is no difference.

Andrew Joseph wrote, "... next stop Auschwitz."

Yes, the tyranny of good intentions takes us there, and Nothing Else.

- clark

Anonymous said...

Dang it!

- Always - copy what you wrote - Before - hitting the, "Publish Your Comment" button.

Anyway, I wrote up some long winded bit about how People discriminate with the laws in place In Spite of them and how we'd all be better off if People could post their positions on a window so the rest of us could avoid the whole she-bang.

Seriously, (almost) nothing sucks more than to take a woman you think is Hot out for dinner only to get the Worst and most Rudest service... and you're the Only ones in the joint getting such lousy service.

Anti-discrimination laws are a fugging Joke!
A cruel joke at that.

- clark

mikeintokyorogers said...

Absolutely, Clark. You cannot legislate morality and there's no way you can pass laws to make people more tolerant of others... Laws cannot control people's beliefs and personalities.

Anonymous said...

ANother thing that bugs me about this whole discrimination thing: Why is it stores are legally allowed - er - scratch that, make it: Why is it stores are legally - "Encouraged" - to discriminate against People due to their age?
Seems kind of counter to this whole "no discrimination allowed" idea the goberment pushes.

I just learned a major gasoline station chain in the unitedstate now has a policy that Everyone must show ID to buy alcohol.
If you ask me, such a policy discriminates against old People.
Why should they show an ID? On the face of it, it's ridiculous.

Are there huge numbers of teenagers wearing Hollywood make-up to make them look old enough to buy alcohol? Or is that just polica informants doing that?

A major grocery store chain here suddenly has a policy that Anyone who does not look to be 50 years of age must show ID to buy alcohol.

Something ominous blows this way.

Most People are oblivious.

And i don't think it's about teenage store clerks being unable to tell if a fifty year old man is old enough to buy alcohol,... it's about more than that.

Just My Observation.

- clark

mikeintokyorogers said...

Yes, Clark. Something ominous this way comes. What blows my mind is, on the one hand, people know that the government starts wars, operates a police state, is involved with all sorts of corruption and white collar crime, yet, a second later, people want the same government to dictate morality or what we should do and who we should associate with? Madness... Hasn't the government done enough to screw things up? Don't people realize that, as the government gets bigger, things get worse? Or haven't they been paying attention for these last 30 ~ 50 years?

Anonymous said...

Clark, that reminds me that in Japanese convenience stores we suddenly have to push a button on a display that asks us we are old enough to drink when we buy beer. I'm in my 50's, but still the button needs to be pushed. When I have my 5-year-old with me, I always let her push the "Yes, I am over 20" button. The shop owners haven't yet objected. It's the absurdity of taking away all personal discrimination (i.e judgement) and letting the government take charge.
ghoti

Bill said...

thanks for answering my question or at least the one about the neighbor and the wife beating. and you're right, if it isn't hurting someone else, then let it go as in the guy shooting targets in his own yard. the bullets sometimes go flying into mine putting me and my family in danger. so we either ask him to stop or we call the cops (if he is a dick and doesn't stop). but like you said, sometimes it's a moral issue.

but finally, i inferred from your answer, that, no, it is not always "cut and dry". and how can it be when dumb humans are involved.

Anonymous said...

I brought up financial regulation to buttress my initial point that I am not a market fundamentalist. I don’t believe that unconstrained capitalism leads to favorable outcomes in all cases, including towards the elimination of discrimination. For example, I’ve read that in France there is an association that tests response rates each year for fictional CVs of graduating seniors. The CVs are identical in every respect except for one having a native sounding name and the other having a foreign sounding name. The response rates are depressingly - and markedly- different. Guess which one is lower.

On financial regulation, I never said (or at least I did not mean to say) that regulation did not exist – it was just ineffectual or lacking in certain areas. For example, Glass–Steagall worked fairly well for many years, but that was dismantled. Derivatives (aka WMD) were not regulated (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-connor/celebrating-ten-years-of_b_799981.html). Greenspan conceded that he purposefully resisted more regulatory oversight on subprime mortgages. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html.

I think people sleep more soundly at night knowing that their building has been built subject to building codes and that these are enforced and monitored. These codes evolve as knowledge improves and built on experience. The same thing goes for financial regulation. One might not agree on every regulation; and I think the key is to keep things relatively simple. For example, how about requiring all house purchasers to put down 20% on the houses they buy? What about limiting mortgages to 20 years instead of 30 years? I have heard that in Japan people can borrow at >30 years with variable rates of interests. That’s a time bomb waiting to explode.

I get a kick out of reading about people like Peter Schiff. This guy makes a ton of money selling his expertise on the FX and gold markets and builds a business around it. Somehow, now he thinks he’s an expert on anything other than FX and gold markets. It’s amazing how tremendous wealth gives people like him such hubris and sense of entitlement. http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/. Especially when we know that there is so much rent seeking and inefficiency in that industry. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/wall-street-inefficient_n_1314922.html.

So Peter dislikes regulation, it appears. But is he completely repudiating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (I doubt it)? Does he think taking certain precautions and safeguards required for treating client money are so bad? Would he change how much people are allowed to purchase stock on margin? At the end of the day it comes down to these particulars, and not sweeping statements such as “all regulation is bad”. Dodd-Frank may be a terrible piece of legislation, but not necessarily all of it.

Market fundamentalists quote Austrian economists like the bible and they sound like their religious compatriots in many ways. For sure they’d throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Anonymous said...

I brought up financial regulation to buttress my initial point that I am not a market fundamentalist. I don’t believe that unconstrained capitalism leads to favorable outcomes in all cases, including towards the elimination of discrimination. For example, I’ve read that in France there is an association that tests response rates each year for fictional CVs of graduating seniors. The CVs are identical in every respect except for one having a native sounding name and the other having a foreign sounding name. The response rates are depressingly - and markedly- different. Guess which one is lower.

On financial regulation, I never said (or at least I did not mean to say) that regulation did not exist – it was just ineffectual or lacking in certain areas. For example, Glass–Steagall worked fairly well for many years, but that was dismantled. Derivatives (aka WMD) were not regulated (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-connor/celebrating-ten-years-of_b_799981.html). Greenspan conceded that he purposefully resisted more regulatory oversight on subprime mortgages. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html.

I think people sleep more soundly at night knowing that their building has been built subject to building codes and that these are enforced and monitored. These codes evolve as knowledge improves and built on experience. The same thing goes for financial regulation. One might not agree on every regulation; and I think the key is to keep things relatively simple. For example, how about requiring all house purchasers to put down 20% on the houses they buy? What about limiting mortgages to 20 years instead of 30 years? I have heard that in Japan people can borrow at >30 years with variable rates of interests. That’s a time bomb waiting to explode.

I get a kick out of reading about people like Peter Schiff. This guy makes a ton of money selling his expertise on the FX and gold markets and builds a business around it. Somehow, now he thinks he’s an expert on anything other than FX and gold markets. It’s amazing how tremendous wealth gives people like him such hubris and sense of entitlement. http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/. Especially when we know that there is so much rent seeking and inefficiency in that industry. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/wall-street-inefficient_n_1314922.html.

So Peter dislikes regulation, it appears. But is he completely repudiating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (I doubt it)? Does he think taking certain precautions and safeguards required for treating client money are so bad? Would he change how much people are allowed to purchase stock on margin? At the end of the day it comes down to these particulars, and not sweeping statements such as “all regulation is bad”. Dodd-Frank may be a terrible piece of legislation, but not necessarily all of it.

Market fundamentalists quote Austrian economists like the bible and they sound like their religious compatriots in many ways. For sure they’d throw the baby out with the bathwater.

mikeintokyorogers said...

I don't have time to deal with all your answer, but will deal with just one glaring flaw: "I think people sleep more soundly at night knowing that their building has been built subject to building codes and that these are enforced and monitored. These codes evolve as knowledge improves and built on experience. The same thing goes for financial regulation" This idea that government regulation stops problems or "helps people sleep at night" If this were true, then, for example, FDA government regulation would have prevented food poisoning in America. But it doesn'T:
"‪One in 6 Americans experience food poisoning each year‬". The utter notion that government officials are benevolent and concerned with public safety (over getting re-elected) defies the historical record. Especially in the USA (And this is from a leftist publication (even a broken clock is right sometimes):
"How the US Government, Banks, Prison-Industrial Complex, Corrupt Officials, Businesses, Law Enforcement, Racists and the CIA Profit From Illegal Drugs". But this is not merely an American problem... It s a fundamental problem with all government:
"‪Cause of fatal collapse in Shanghai‬". Like I said before, if you think your ideas are so correct why don't you start your own blog? I'm not answering you anymore. Get off your duff and do some reading and research. Start here: www.Lewrockwell.com... There you'll find plenty of former leftists and people who thought just like you do, ntil they began to read and study.

Anonymous said...

I guess you just want people who just agree with you to post comments. It seems contrary to the spirit of having a blog in the first place - but I've gotten the message though -loud and clear.
P.S. I did a word count on my comment before submitting it. It clocks at fewer words that your friends Andrew Joseph, etc., who agree with you.

mikeintokyorogers said...

Anonymous, You are impossible! This is not a question of word count. (Not busy, are you?)
Can I infer from your answer that you want to say, "I won't read, I won't study. I refuse to consider when my arguments are disproved." You know what? That doesn't surprise me in the least. I tell you to write your own blog, but instead of encouragement, you consider that work and turn tail. That doesn't surprise me either!

Anonymous said...

Fair enough.
Either way I'm going to take a break from commenting, at least for a while.

In the meantime, cya ;-)

Anonymous said...

Mike, that was a mighty take-down! Here's more to prove your point that our financial industry is the most over-regulated and controlled on in the entire world - BAR NONE! The Cost Of Government Regulation: $1.75 Trillion
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/22/2012 - 12:04
Competitive Enterprise Institute
In their Ten Thousand Commandments 2012 report which was released in June, the CEI estimates the cost of US government regulation at $US 1.75 TRILLION. That is just under half (48 percent) of the budget of the federal government.It is almost ten times the total of all corporate taxes collected and almost double the total collected from individual income taxes. It is also one-third higher than the total of all pre-tax corporate profits. It is the hidden cost of doing business in an interventionist economy. The fact that the cost of complying with these regulations is substantially higher than the total of corporate profits is a stark illustration of the end result of economic intervention. That end result is capital consumption.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/cost-government-regulation-175-trillion

Anonymous said...

Yee! Haw! Let's drink the Kool-Aide! Yeah, we can believe ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY EVERYTHING Alan Greenspan says. Yessiree! And I also believe in tooth-fairies and Santa Claus! Keep it up Anony... You are great for laughs in the morning!
http://www.thenation.com/blog/lies-alan-greenspan#

Anonymous said...

That building codes bit was kind of funny.

There's a city near me which has never had building codes until last year. An entire city.
Everything seems to have worked just fine over the last few decades and the People look like they sleep quite well.

Anonymous @ 5:03 AM reminds me of this bit:

"People who are unwilling to respect property boundaries as a limitation on the extent of their decision-making, have never become socially housebroken. Their relationships with others reflect not a consciously-derived set of principles, but an unfocused reaction to whatever is before them. Like the reptilian brain that operates on a "see-act" way of thinking, the hidden costs and the unintended consequences of their actions are simply not part of their calculation. If they value a given end, it matters not to such minds whose lives and property interests will be conscripted in service thereto." - From, The Wizards of Ozymandias

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/ebook/105.html

Also,

"... a lack of accountability is a famed feature of all governments everywhere, in contrast with private enterprise ...

Your house doesn't fall in because of building codes but because the builders are liable for mistakes and because there is competition among them to build better buildings. What's more, private enterprise regulates itself, with a vast array of regulatory codes that are self-enforcing (Underwriters Laboratory, for example, is entirely private). So why do the government codes exist? Mostly they are used by large companies to erect barriers to entry by smaller firms." ...
- From, Socialism and the Chinese Earthquake

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/chinese-earthquake.html

- clark