Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2013, 09:29 AM
Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Since this is so off-topic, I'm replying to BnW's post #54 on Obamacare here:

Q: BnW, should there be affirmative action for gays that requires companies to hire x% of gays, and mandates x% of high school prom kings/queens must be gay, etc?


IMO, this would HURT, not help, the gay rights movement. The tide is already shifting, and being homophobic is rapidly becoming socially unacceptable, equated with being an uneducated backwards redneck. Obama didn't change the trend, he merely stepped in when it was politically advantageous and opinion polls showed 51%+ supported it. If the government stays out and lets this trend continue, my guess is that in 10-20 years there will be very little discrimination. But, everybody resents having a gun pointed to their head. So, IF employers are ordered at gunpoint to hire gays, imo, sure, it may quickly eliminate discrimination in employment, but it will amplify and feed homophobic tendencies and create resentment and hatred of gays. Every time a gay person gets a job, the homophobes will insist it was only because of affirmative action, and may tolerate gays because there's a gun to their head, but will hate them for it. However, 50 years from now the government would credit affirmative action with ending homophobia, when the reality is it would have only prolonged it.

Same thing with black rights. You've admitted already the tides were already turning, and the President stepped in only when it was politically advantageous. Racism was becoming less and less acceptable, increasingly associated with uneducated, backward rednecks. Even in the south. So, if the government had done nothing, there's no reason the trend would have not continued and discrimination would have been eventually rooted out. IMO, part of the reason why there is still so much racism is BECAUSE OF government interference and affirmative action. For the same reasons I said about gays, people resent having a gun to their head. Now every time a black man accomplishes something, racists can dismiss it as simply the result of affirmative action, and not merit.

So, do you support gay affirmative action? If not, why not, and why is that different from racial affirmative action?

(31-12-2013 07:43 AM)BnW Wrote:  frankksj's position … is that any government interference is force at the end of a gun

It's laughable because YOU are the one who is inconsistent in your definition of force. If some guy told you to do something or else he'd put a head to your head, tie your hands behind your back, and lock in a dungeon for 10 year, you'd insist that was force—violence even. BUT, when you learn the guy is a cop, suddenly it's no longer force or violence—it's just law enforcement. Then when I ask if the Nazi's used force, given they were democratically elected and simply enforcing laws, you get stuck because your definition of force is so arbitrary.

My definition is consistent and easy to understand. Cops, politicians, bankers, janitors are ALL human beings in my world with the exact same rights. If some action is “violence” when a janitor does it, it's still violence when a cop does it. I have NEVER said 'government interference' is force, rather I have ALWAYS said 'anybody who uses threats of violence' is force—no matter who it is. My definition of force is predictable. When debating if a certain action is “force”, you only need ask yourself “Would it be force if a private citizen did this to me?” Thus you know my answer. Affirmative action IS force because if I, as a private citizen, told you to hire someone against your will or else I'd put a gun to your head, you would unquestionably call a spade a spade and label it 'force'. Your definition is convoluted because you don't treat all humans as equal. Some action is force when one person does it, but it's not force when another does it, unless you consider it extreme and then it's a gray area.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 09:51 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
No there shouldnt.

Affirmative action for any part of society never helps solving problems of inequality and discrimination.

(22-05-2014 06:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I abstain from all forms of sexual acts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Germans are coming's post
31-12-2013, 09:58 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Frank, what's your take on the Trayvon Martin case? Do you think race had nothing to do with it?
on a different note, I think you or someone else in the forum has said that Libertarianism works best when you have a well educated general public, until then what do you think is the solution to social issues like racism, homophobia and income inequality?

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 11:38 AM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2013 11:42 AM by frankksj.)
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(31-12-2013 09:58 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  Frank, what's your take on the Trayvon Martin case? Do you think race had nothing to do with it?

That's really tough. Like everyone my initial reaction was that Zimmerman was a racist who should be tried for murder. But then the counter argument was that Zimmerman was a stupid cop-wannabe vigilante that shouldn't have been trailing Martin, but that Martin is the one who attacked Zimmerman who was defending himself. Unfortunately, there's no way to know since there were no witnesses and the only one who could tell his side of the story is dead. If I were on the jury, while I would have liked to see Zimmerman behind bars, I see how it would be hard to reach 'beyond a reasonable doubt' when all you have is testimony from one side.

(31-12-2013 09:58 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  on a different note, I think you or someone else in the forum has said that Libertarianism works best when you have a well educated general public, until then what do you think is the solution to social issues like racism, homophobia and income inequality?

I became libertarian only after living in Switzerland and seeing how well the system works in real life, and how peaceful, voluntary solutions sort things out better than guns and violence. There's no government welfare program, neither at the Federal nor State (canton) level, and it's left up to, effective charity, in each local community. Yet I've never seen another country where everybody is taken care of and nobody falls through the cracks, and without creating dependence. When someone needs help, and goes to his neighbors who know him, they're much better able to determine who genuinely needs it and how best to help the person than some central bureaucrat 2,000 miles away processing forms. The federal and state governments stay out of education too, and leave it to the local communities, and they have an excellent education system that blows ours out of the water. And the country that scores #1 across the board on all education is Finland, and that's also the one country that takes localization to the most extreme, letting each teacher establish their own curriculum. As far as income inequality, I think this isn't really important. What's more important? Living in a country where everybody is dirt poor and miserable, like North Korea? Or where nobody is poor, everybody has a nice home, plenty of food, a good education, everybody enjoys travel abroad every year, but there's also some filthy rich people? Switzerland has the latter, and it works very well because as Milton Friedman said, the problem with wealth redistribution is that there's no way to do it without discouraging its creation. Switzerland proved that. They do nothing to redistribute wealth. Rich residents can negotiate a fixed tax and not even report their income. The federal income tax rate is typically 2% or so, and tops out at 10%. And capital gains are tax-free. So, yes, the rich get VERY rich, and thus they have relatively high inequality. BUT, this encourages so much economic activity and prosperity that businesses have to fight for every employee they can get, unemployment is virtually non-existent (typically 1%), and the janitor at McDonald's gets $40k/year + 1 month vacation + free medical. And the janitor's much less likely to resent the guy $1 billion/year, than in the US where we discourage economic activity so that a large percentage of the population cannot find work, and janitors live in abject poverty while they watch others who have more than they can spend. I think it's better for one's ego and moral as well to be self-sufficient than to be dependent on government handouts. In Switzerland the janitor can be proud of his position because he earns a comfortable salary and nobody's forced to help him out. In the US, the janitor can't feed himself and needs to get the government to provide food stamps, etc. just so he doesn't starve. Thus, when libertarians oppose welfare, it's NOT that we don't care about the plight of the poor. It's just that we look past the obvious solution of redistributing wealth at gunpoint and realize there are much better peaceful alternatives that are more effective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 12:00 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
I see.
Does the system work because they have a moral code that values cooperation and helping those in need? If so what would happen if that moral code wasn't in place?

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(31-12-2013 12:00 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  I see.
Does the system work because they have a moral code that values cooperation and helping those in need? If so what would happen if that moral code wasn't in place?

Well let me ask you this. Just like we have inequality in money, we have inequality in other valuable assets as well, like talent, beauty, humor, etc.

Now we see a girl born with a clef-palate making her unpleasant to look at. What's the better solution? a) get the girl corrective surgery, or b) give the girl authority to cut everybody's else face so that the rest of the population looks like her? The latter indulges some very ugly human emotions, inciting jealousy and envy, even if she characterizes it as 'compassion'. That approach would strip society of a "moral code", and a spirit of cooperation and charity, instead creating a class warfare between those with beauty and those without.

Yet when it comes to financial assets, that's exactly what we do. Rather then empowering the poor, giving them the tools to make it on their own, we have a system where, if they can get 51% of the voters behind them, they can have the police confiscate property of the wealthy at gunpoint, even though this doesn't really help the poor voters since it just discourages the wealthy from working, or more often, causes them to flee, either in person, or capital flight, to tax havens. Liberals complain about the estimated $20 trillion in capital that's fled and disappeared in tax havens, they complain about the benedict arnold billionaires who expatriate, yet they're the ones chasing them and their money away.

So, I think the reason why the Swiss system works isn't that their DNA is somehow different than ours and they have an innate 'moral code'. To the contrary, imo, their libertarian system fosters and nurtures a strong moral code. Although I lived in the city, Zürich, one of my best friends was on the town council for a small town outside the city. I asked how the welfare system works. He says in their town council meetings they'll discuss how the elderly widow Schmidt needs a new roof on her house, and there's a young man with a mental handicap who'd like to find work, so the town will hire a roofer to fix Schmidt's roof, if he gives the young man an apprenticeship to do the work and learn a trade. Such a system encourages a moral code, it encourages compassion.

Contrast it to the US system where people send in a form to some central bureaucracy that mails out welfare checks and food stamps. You have a system that fosters situations like the michigan $1 million lottery winner who was still collecting food stamps because she felt it was her right to make her neighbors buy her food--rather than an act of charity to help one in need. And when exposed, she ends up on drugs and dies from an OD. I simply don't see the liberal/left welfare state as being compassionate. I think it's the lazy, easy way out when you see a poor person to just take money from a rich person at gunpoint and give it to the poor person. Creating a culture of charity and compassion is harder, but in the end much more effective IMO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like frankksj's post
31-12-2013, 01:02 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Thanks for your input, I appreciate your time. I'm really interested in learning about this.

So libertarianism is in favor of some sort of decentralized welfare?
What does a libertarian do to avoid corruption?
What's your take on lobbying?

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 01:11 PM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2013 01:14 PM by Bocaj910.)
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
There shouldn't be. I want to be hired for my merits, not my sexuality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bocaj910's post
31-12-2013, 01:33 PM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2013 01:40 PM by Bocaj910.)
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Also, isn't deception a concern here? You can't (easily) lie about your skin color or sex, but you can lie about your sexuality. Unless you're in a same-sex marriage, there would be no evidence. Any person could claim bisexuality to get that extra edge in the job application.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 01:59 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(31-12-2013 01:02 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  So libertarianism is in favor of some sort of decentralized welfare?

Yes, but I'd word it differently. Libertarianism is about one thing and only one thing: liberty. The right for each individual to exercise his free will, without threats of violence. We believe the role of government is to prevent violence, not initiate it. Now we know only a small minority will feel this. So a compromise is to allow force to be initiated at the local level, by local governments, and to guarantee freedom of mobility; the right of every person to leave his local government with no strings attached and no obligations if he finds it too oppressive. Thus, free will is still respected because if one CHOOSES to live in a given local jurisdiction, he is entering into a social contract voluntarily (and voluntary is the key to any contract being valid), agreeing to subject himself to the laws.

So the net result is an inverse "power pyramid" from the traditional. The bulk of the power is at the individual family level, next the local community, then the county, then the state, and lastly the Federal government, which has the least amount of power. As opposed to the current US system where the Federal government has the lion's share of power, less for the state, less for the county, less for the city, and very little for the individual.

(31-12-2013 01:02 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  What does a libertarian do to avoid corruption?

It's MUCH easier to control corruption when the power is at a local level, in your community, where everybody can see what's going on and audit it. Look at the public services Switzerland provides. The total share of government at all levels as a % of gdp is less than the US, BUT, the level of government services is better than any of the Scandinavian governments. There's no potholes, workers scrub all the tunnels, the trains are immaculate and always on time, etc. It's much easier for a US federal politician, 2,000 miles away, making decisions on behalf of 300 million people behind closed doors, to get away with shady activity, than it is for the local politician who everybody knows.

(31-12-2013 01:02 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  What's your take on lobbying?

I don't particularly like it, but I wouldn't use violence (ie laws) to stop it. I think there are better ways, such as educating the public to demand greater transparency. For example, imo, it's outrageous that the head of the NSA can perjure himself, lying under oath before Congress, with complete impunity. And, like the former heads of the NSA, he's an executive from Booz Allen, who, like his predecessors, leaves Booz Allen, heads up the NSA, gives Booz Allen billions in contracts for a couple years, and then will go back to Booz Allen and get a multi-million dollar signing bonus. The FDA does the same thing with the drug companies. It's horribly corrupt. Yet these agencies operate in secrecy, unaccountable, and thousands of miles away.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: