"Book club"

[Hawker]

As I said, I know its economically better for the restaurant owner to exclude blacks but its still wrong and in a decent society, it will be illegal.  

No, it's economically better not to exclude blacks, or any other ethnic group.

If you have 100 potential customers, of all creeds, skin colors, etc, and you turn away 25 of them because of one of those factors, you now have only 75 potential customers. If there are enough people who disagree with that policy that if voted on, it would be made illegal (in this case, 51 persons), you have further reduced your potential customer base. Even assuming that all of the excluded group object enough to vote against it, you've still reduced your potential customer base to 49.

The other 51 people, your excluded group included, would go elsewhere. That means you are giving your competition more business than yourself. That's not good business, especially when you consider that not all of those 49 potential customers will translate into actual customers.

My review mentions how Friedman has the exact problem with other libertarians that you are giving me.

5. He is funny about how libertarians respond to criticism: "When I put such questions to other libertarians, one common response is a frantic attempt to reinterpret the problem out of existence."

Really, don't do that.  Saying that the business owner has miscalculated does not mean that its OK to allow him exclude blacks.  Its his business and if he thinks selling to racists is the best way to profit, that is no reason to make it legal.

Do you agree that excluding blacks from jobs or businesses should be illegal?

[myrkul]

Do you agree that excluding blacks from jobs or businesses should be illegal?

No, I don't. I don't believe it should need to be illegal. I agree that it is wrong, but telling someone "no" does not harm them, regardless of why they are told "no". Excluding someone from business on non-related terms only hurts the person doing the excluding.

[Hawker]

Do you agree that excluding blacks from jobs or businesses should be illegal?

No, I don't. I don't believe it should need to be illegal. I agree that it is wrong, but telling someone "no" does not harm them, regardless of why they are told "no". Excluding someone from business on non-related terms only hurts the person doing the excluding.

Sorry the society you want is very different from one I would find acceptable.  Your being OK with mobs lynching people suddenly is a lot more sinister than when I thought it was merely misplaced idealism.

I'm disgusted.

[myrkul]

 Your being OK with mobs lynching people...

If this is truly what you think I believe, then you're denser than I thought.

[FirstAscent]

1. Agreed, racial discrimination is wrong. That is why I would not patronize an establishment that practiced it. I would tell my friends about it, and suggest they might want to avoid it as well. By practicing racial discrimination, the shop owner has excluded an entire segment of the population, as well as another, potentially larger, segment of your potential customers (even with the policy) that disagrees with the policy. So, it might work, but an inclusive policy would get people more business.

Another incorrect assumption on your part (among the endless parade of incorrect assumptions you make). You are mistaken in believing that a business owner will always operate in an economically rational way.

2. These stats are all very nice, but the fact remains that someone who does not wear their seat belt endangers only themselves.

Quite an awful conclusion you've drawn there. It speaks volumes about how sloppy you are in analyzing your own thought processes. Now tell me, why would someone who chooses to not wear seat belts only endanger themselves? They're likely endangering their children through their own rules or beliefs, as well as possibly their childrens' friends when riding in their car.

[Hawker]

Do you agree that excluding blacks from jobs or businesses should be illegal?

No, I don't. I don't believe it should need to be illegal. I agree that it is wrong, but telling someone "no" does not harm them, regardless of why they are told "no". Excluding someone from business on non-related terms only hurts the person doing the excluding.

You believe the only victim of racism is the person who is discriminated against.

Your being OK with mobs lynching people...

If this is truly what you think I believe, then you're denser than I thought.

Really? Then who is this myrkul guy I am quoting?

A system where a mob can hang a man without a jury trial is a system where mobs will hang men without jury trials.  If the mobs are of different races or religion, they will argue its self-defence.  The question is whether the NAP forbids it?  If not, its a lot less benign that I thought.  

In a case of irrefutable proof (man murders someone in broad daylight, gets 6 or seven holes punched in him by the people in the street) I'd say justice done. But in a case where there is even a shred of doubt, arbitration remains the way to go. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," as it were.

You want a society where its legal to refuse a man a job, house or a loan because he is black.  And you want a society where people can hang a man themselves.

Disgusting.

[myrkul]

I want a society where nobody has a positive obligation to anyone else, unless they choose to.

I mean, seriously? Asking an anarchist if he thinks something should be illegal? What did you think I would say?

[Hawker]

I want a society where nobody has a positive obligation to anyone else, unless they choose to.

I mean, seriously? Asking an anarchist if he thinks something should be illegal? What did you think I would say?

If your ideas lead to a set of results that are morally repugnant, then its time to rethink.

[myrkul]

I want a society where nobody has a positive obligation to anyone else, unless they choose to.

I mean, seriously? Asking an anarchist if he thinks something should be illegal? What did you think I would say?

If your ideas lead to a set of results that are morally repugnant, then its time to rethink.

Which result is that? I want you to elucidate it in no uncertain terms.

[Hawker]

I want a society where nobody has a positive obligation to anyone else, unless they choose to.

I mean, seriously? Asking an anarchist if he thinks something should be illegal? What did you think I would say?

If your ideas lead to a set of results that are morally repugnant, then its time to rethink.

Which result is that? I want you to elucidate it in no uncertain terms.

Do you agree that excluding blacks from jobs or businesses should be illegal?

No, I don't. I don't believe it should need to be illegal. I agree that it is wrong, but telling someone "no" does not harm them, regardless of why they are told "no". Excluding someone from business on non-related terms only hurts the person doing the excluding.

You believe the only victim of racism is the person who is discriminated against.  The laughable thing is that you say only the person discriminated against suffers.  Perhaps blacks should pay people not to do business with them?  After all, you think they are not the victims.

A society that operates on that basis is morally repugnant.  If you don't want that, you need to rethink.

[myrkul]

You believe the only victim of racism is the person who is discriminated against.  The laughable thing is that you say only the person discriminated against suffers.  Perhaps blacks should pay people not to do business with them?  After all, you think they are not the victims.

You contradict yourself.

The discriminator loses money, or an employee. The discriminated against can seek employment, or whatever service they were seeking, elsewhere, where they will not have to do business with a bigot. The discriminated against has a more enjoyable experience, elsewhere, and the discriminator is out business.

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

[Hawker]

You believe the only victim of racism is the person who is discriminated against.  The laughable thing is that you say only the person discriminated against suffers.  Perhaps blacks should pay people not to do business with them?  After all, you think they are not the victims.

You contradict yourself.

The discriminator loses money, or an employee. The discriminated against can seek employment, or whatever service they were seeking, elsewhere, where they will not have to do business with a bigot. The discriminated against has a more enjoyable experience, elsewhere, and the discriminator is out business.

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

Have you even read the book?  The impression you give is that you are doing what Friedman complained of: "When I put such questions to other libertarians, one common response is a frantic attempt to reinterpret the problem out of existence." 

Racism is real and racists did very good business until they were forced to stop.  I would not support living in a society that has signs up saying "Whites Only."  I don't care if it is or is not profitable.  Saying that racists are the ones who suffer is irrelevant - I don't care if they are ruining themselves.   Its not a morally acceptable way to run a society.

If you are OK with it, that's fine.  Its good to be clear what you stand for.

[myrkul]

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

You avoided answering this question.

[Hawker]

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

You avoided answering this question.

Its a question on another subject.  Why waste time on it?

The subject here is the book you chose.  It says that the owner of a business should be free to deny employment and service to people based purely on the colour of their skins.  Not something they can change - something they are born with.

That vision leads back to a society with "No blacks need apply" at the bottom of job descriptions.  Saying that the blacks are better off if that happens doesn't make it OK.  Saying that the business is losing out on diversity and on black workers doesn't make it OK. 

[myrkul]

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

You avoided answering this question.

Its a question on another subject.  Why waste time on it?

Because it is on topic to the discussion: Discrimination. I ask again: Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

[Hawker]

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

You avoided answering this question.

Its a question on another subject.  Why waste time on it?

Because it is on topic to the discussion: Discrimination. I ask again: Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

Yes.  The topic is racial discrimination.  That is an example of behavioural discrimination.

EDIT for clarity.  Thats a yes - if someone is badly behaved of course the business can deny them employment or service.

[myrkul]

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

Yes.  

Ah, good. I trust that wasn't too painful?

So you feel that it's OK to discriminate against people who say things which the proprietors disagree with. What if they are saying "God bless," or "L'chaim"? Is it OK to discriminate against people who are saying those words?

[Hawker]

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

Yes.  

Ah, good. I trust that wasn't too painful?

So you feel that it's OK to discriminate against people who say things which the proprietors disagree with. What if they are saying "God bless," or "L'chaim"? Is it OK to discriminate against people who are saying those words?

Why are you wandering off onto talking about behavioural discrimination?  No-one is born saying "God bless."

[myrkul]

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

Yes.  

Ah, good. I trust that wasn't too painful?

So you feel that it's OK to discriminate against people who say things which the proprietors disagree with. What if they are saying "God bless," or "L'chaim"? Is it OK to discriminate against people who are saying those words?

Why are you wandering off onto talking about behavioural discrimination?  No-one is born saying "God bless."

No, but religious discrimination is often just as prevalent as racial.

I just want to know where your boundaries are. Bear with me, and answer the question?

[Hawker]

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

Yes.  

Ah, good. I trust that wasn't too painful?

So you feel that it's OK to discriminate against people who say things which the proprietors disagree with. What if they are saying "God bless," or "L'chaim"? Is it OK to discriminate against people who are saying those words?

Why are you wandering off onto talking about behavioural discrimination?  No-one is born saying "God bless."

No, but religious discrimination is often just as prevalent as racial.

I just want to know where your boundaries are. Bear with me, and answer the question?

It doesn't matter where my boundaries lie.  Friedman is OK with "No blacks need apply" being legal as part of a job description and with "Whites only" restaurants.  I'm not.  You are.  So your vision of society is going to be very different from mine.