AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (328 comments)

  1. SeattleSam

    Friedman incorrectly assumed that the lady who questioned him was interested in benefiting females in general. Equal pay rules — like minimum wage laws and closed union shop rules — are popular among those who can take advantage of them at the expense of those who can’t. If I were that woman, what I would want is government to not only mandate equal pay, but mandate that employers hire a female quota as well. This might result in fewer people being employed in total, but what do I care? I have my job AND a higher than market wage.

  2. Would Friedman and company also argue against the wisdom of the Military Occupational Specialty code (MOS code) that tends to focus on qualifications rather than arbitrary opinions by individuals?

    1. Never been in the military have you? An MOS is a job classification, not a qualification. It’s true that your MOS might have involved training in that field but it’s just as possible that it didn’t. Even if it did the training doesn’t qualify everyone as an expert anymore than a college degree guarantees competence.
      I knew mechanics, medics, photographers, machinist, radiomen, telephone repairmen, you name it. many were very good at their jobs and others were complete screw ups. Some of them couldn’t tie their own shoes .

      1. yes.. but will they even have the opportunity to do the job if they do not have the MOS?

        MOS does not guarantee high competence no more than a degree in Medicine does but do you want someone who says he is an Doctor or EMT (but without training or qualifications) practicing on you ?

        job classifications are pretty standard across both govt and private industry and usually involve training and qualifications – and I would assert are far better than some idiot substituting their opinion rather than actual qualifications/training.

        You don’t want your pilot in the cockpit because the boss “likes” him or her. You wan them there because they’ve demonstrated some level of competence no matter what kind of idiot the boss is.

        1. Heh. as usual Larry misunderstands the comment.

          1. no really. you have to be able to quantify the “equal work” part of “equal pay” and the base argument focuses on gender issues as if the concept itself is not valid.

            the concept, independent of gender, basically assures that regardless of gender and pay parity – that the work itself is not not just “generic” and subjectivity of performance is only part of the overall proposition.

            If a Woman doctor has the same qualifications as a male doctor – or an airline pilot or a helicopter pilot, – even if she has kids won’t effect her value as much as if the job has no formal qualifications and you end up at the mercy of someone who will subjectively determine your value.

            this whole idea presumes and pretends that discrimination never existed and/or if it did, it was okay.

          2. morganovich

            “this whole idea presumes and pretends that discrimination never existed and/or if it did, it was okay.”

            no, it doesn’t.

            that’s a complete misframing of the issue.

            all value is subjective from the price of a ham sandwich to the wage of a doctor.

            the issue here is not “does discrimination exist”, it’s “what is the best way to determine value”.

            best does not mean perfect.

            but in a free market, if items (or workers) of the same value exist at better prices, then there is great incentive to find them and and great flexibility to do so.

            mandates do not work that way.

            they force a rigid solution

            let’s say, for example, that patients prefer female doctors but juries respond better to male lawyers.

            demanding that each be paid the same as a peer of the opposite sex then becomes absurd. the value proposition is not the same.

            that may still be due to discrimination, but what are you going to do? mandate that patients see male docs and that juries favor female layers? how would you even do that?

            to argue for “equal work equal pay” laws is, in essence, to argue that a distant federal agency is a better arbiter of precisely what equal work is and a better judge of need, qualification, risk, and performance than the organizations and customers actually providing and using a service and that government bureaucrats, whose incentives are not based on work performance or outcomes in these situations will be better and more diligent at getting good ones.

            that seems like a pretty absurd claim to me.

          3. re: ” let’s say, for example, that patients prefer female doctors but juries respond better to male lawyers.”

            let’s say a patron refuses to be waited on by a black person…

            been there, done that..

            are you justifying it?

          4. morganovich

            “let’s say a patron refuses to be waited on by a black person…

            been there, done that..

            are you justifying it?”

            that’s another absurd framing of the issue.

            further, there is no way to fix it.

            let’s say you refuse to be waited on by lithuanians.

            you see 2 restaurants, and pick the one with no one who looks like me working there.

            just how is anyone supposed to fix that?

            what could any of us or the government even do? mandate that you eat at lithuanian run eateries?

            there is no possible way to mandate or legislate an end to prejudice.

            it’s just a fact of life like pretty girls getting asked out more often.

            and where does this stop? taller men tend to have higher earnings. shall we mandate stipend for those under 5’10″?

            attractive people earn more as well. shall we have an ugly guy bonus?

            people have preferences. it’s just a fact of life. not all preferences are prejudices. some are.

            but there is no way to fix that so long as individuals make their own consumption decisions.

            you might as well try and mandate that ham sandwiches cost the same as roast beef even though people like them less.

            you’ll wind up causing more harm than you fix.

          5. @Morg – did you grow up in the South during the civil rights era?

            that’s not “framing” the issue. Perhaps you are too young and did not grow up in the South but I can assure you that white folks would not (for instance) let a black person touch anything they owned much less wait on them.

            Ambulance EMTs no matter how qualified could not attend a wreck with a white person.. they had to wait for a white EMT.

            You can credit the US Military for beginning the changes because they needed manpower in WWII no matter the color and when those folks got back home and were told to get back to separate bathrooms and stuff, they were having none of it.

            Do you remember the civil war era and the equal rights for women era?

            do you know which came first?

          6. morganovich

            larry-

            you seem to have missed what i said.

            i am not denying the existence of prejudice. (though i think it has lessened)

            what i am saying is that there is nothing the government can do about it.

            if you are a racist and do not want a lithuanian doctor, then what can be done? how are we going to make you go to one?

            you are the customer and you are going to make that choice.

            if i am running a medical practice, even if i am utterly without prejudice, if you, the customer are, demanding that i hire without respect to what my customers want is going to harm me (and likely just send you to another office).

            you seem to be starting from the presumption that government can end predjudce for individuals.

            banning certain overt manifestations of it around access is one thing, but you cannot mandate what people are going to prefer and where they shop/eat/get medical care.

            the ultimate arbiter of value is the consumer. nothing can change that.

            as a business is far closer to the consumer and those hired to serve them they are the ones that are better positioned to determine value.

            you cannot act like equal pay for equal work is somehow objectively determinable.

            it’s not.

            2 white male doctors may seem the same number of patients in a day. but that does not make it equal. outcomes might be better, people might like one guy more, whatever.

            this is true even in somehting that seems measurable like how many toasters you can assemble in an hour. how do you get along with employees, are you timely, promotable, whatever. there are a zillion factors you consider when you hire. productivity is a big one, but even that is not always easy to measure.

            to assume that somehow government is going to be a better arbiter of this than those actually involved in a transaction flies in the face of all the history of such plans and basic business sense.

          7. re: ” what i am saying is that there is nothing the government can do about it.”

            but they did – in both the military and the hiring of civil service workers – and in doing so – they set expectations for the private sector.

            my point is:

            1. – there WAS discrimination

            2. – govt DID do something about it although they did not wipe it out by any means.

            the kind of discrimination we are talking about now days is mild compared to what it what in the deep south in the 1950’s where blacks were routinely denied equal opportunity even for state jobs.

            we keep pretending that none of this ever happened but it did.

            and that’s the reason why the laws came about.

            it may be time to unwind them but to deny the reason why the laws are there to start with is to deny that there ever was a problem – and believe me there WAS a problem.

          8. all value is subjective from the price of a ham sandwich to the wage of a doctor.

            That’s so important it bears repeating..

            all value is subjective from the price of a ham sandwich to the wage of a doctor.”

            all value is subjective from the price of a ham sandwich to the wage of a doctor.”

          9. my point is:

            1. – there WAS discrimination

            2. – govt DID do something about it although they did not wipe it out by any means.

            Yes indeed, government did something about it. Government made it costless for employers to indulge their biases.

            If an employer wishes to discriminate against an employee because of their race or gender, the employee may be able to become or remain employed by agreeing to work for less than members of the favored race or gender. Thus to hire the favored race or gender the employer must pay more, hurting their bottom line.

            Equal pay mandates eliminate this cost as the cost of all employees must be the same.

            If I prefer to hire men rather than women, I can do so at no cost as I must pay them both the same.

            If women, on the other hand, can work for less than men, I must pay more to indulge my bias.

            If women were really paid only 80% as much as men for the same work, I would be nuts if I didn’t fire all the men that worked for me and hire only women for a great savings in labor costs.

            Note that we are not talking about fairness here, only the reality you are so fond of claiming to have a clue about.

          10. morganovich

            l-

            “my point is:

            1. – there WAS discrimination

            2. – govt DID do something about it although they did not wipe it out by any means.”

            no, they did not.

            you are still missing the point.

            there were laws that said things like “an ambulance with black EMTs cannot pick up white people” or “black people are not allowed to go to this school”.

            those were limitations on liberty mandated by law.

            to get rid of them enhances liberty.

            that is a good thing. those laws should never have existed in the first place.

            that is not the same as getting rid of prejudice, nor does it affect personal choice.

            today, you could get hit by a car. the ambulance that came might have black EMT’s. you as an individual are still absolutely free to refuse to be treated by them. there is no law against that nor could there ever be.

            it’s your choice.

            a society which individuals posses liberty will ALWAYS be like that.

            you are confusing 2 different issues. getting rid of a law that reduces liberty for racist reasons is NOT the same as imposing a law that takes away liberty for racial reasons, even if well intended.

            my view is that none of that is any of the government’s business. it’s our liberty.

            if a club (like the bohemian club in san francisco) wants to have only male members, that is up to them. it’s no one’s business but theirs.

            if a high school wants to be all girls, that is up to them as well.

            (of interest, pretty much all the all boy boarding schools in new england were legally forced to go co ed by equal rights lawsuits. oddly, none of the all girl schools were. as a result, there are now far more places for a girl at a NE boarding school than a boy)

            prejudice exists in 100’s of places and varieties. it is not the role of government to stamp it out, even if it could.

            the role of government is to safeguard the rights and liberties of individuals. that means it should make no laws about races at all be they jim crow or affirmative action. they are really just 2 sides of the same coin, even if one is intended to harm and another help (though, ironically, the great society programs of LBJ did far more harm to the black community than jim crow did trying to hurt them. the reversal of fortunes for blacks after the GS was enacted is really stark. they were catching up to whites for decades, and the GS reversed the trend and shattered the black family)

            i get that you mean well, but i think that the programs you seem to champion do more harm than good. the evidence is quite stark on that.

            this is the inevitable result of mandating unreality.

          11. separate but equal schools, bathrooms, ambulances, jails, etc.. was not govt sanctioned and taxes collected to pay for separate facilities?

            are you saying that blacks could go into Woolworths and get a meal prepared by blacks and served by white waitresses?

            Morg – you seem younger and not southern to me.

            you no doubt, do not remember the South in the 1960’s right?

            this is where some of these laws came from.

            Women were a little later to the game but based on the same premise…

            you say govt could not stop it.

            govt was actually involved in promoting it.

            The white guy that was the manager at the bank was also an elected official who voted to have a separate bathroom with “colored” on the entrance.

            do you not remember any of this?

          12. that’s not “framing” the issue. Perhaps you are too young and did not grow up in the South but I can assure you that white folks would not (for instance) let a black person touch anything they owned much less wait on them.

            Yeah, I see what you mean.

          13. re: ” Yeah, I see what you mean.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

            circa 1967

          14. Wow. this is a great interchange:

            morganovich: The voice of enlightened reason.

            Larry: Missing the point.

            morganovich: The voice of enlightened reason.

            Larry: Missing the point.

            morganovich: The voice of enlightened reason.

            Larry: Missing the point.

          15. The white guy that was the manager at the bank was also an elected official who voted to have a separate bathroom with “colored” on the entrance.

            While that’s correct, by helping make his views the law, he was making choices for everyone else, which was as wrong then as it is now.

            Forcing people to associate with those they don’t wish to associate with is as wrong now as forbidding them to associate was then, and removes the financial cost of indulging one’s prejudices.

          16. ” Forcing people to associate with those they don’t wish to associate with is as wrong now as forbidding them to associate was then, and removes the financial cost of indulging one’s prejudices.”

            how about the right of someone to the same public accommodations as others regardless of race?

            are you opposed to the public accommodation laws?

            is it okay for someone in business to say ” we do not serve your “kind” here” if they are using public infrastructure and services?

          17. morganovich

            you see 2 restaurants, and pick the one with no one who looks like me working there.

            Do you mean people who don’t use capital letters?

          18. morganovich

            larry-

            this is turning into another one of these interminable conversations where i keep trying to explain the same thing over and over and you keep missing it.

            i think i’ve made it very clear (and ron got it first go, so it’s not that this is incomprehensible, it’s you)

            one more try before i once more despair of getting you you see logic, or, in this case, even into the same discussion the rest of us are having.

            it’s VERY simple.

            laws promoting separate but equal abridge liberty. this makes them bad. but that was a positive action taken by government. they mandated it. all we had to do was get them to stop doing a bad thing. with me so far?

            affirmative action is little different. that is the government once more taking action around race to thwart individual preference and force outcomes.

            i oppose it for the exact same reason that i would oppose jim crow if someone threatened to return such laws to the books.

            i think it is the exact same thing.

            it’s the government using race as a criteria to drive outcomes. you may or may not support those goals, but at its most fundamental level, the 2 are the same thing.

            government is telling you how you must act.

            perhaps it’s you cannot sit on the front of the bus, perhaps it’s you cannot have an all boy boarding school or even an all boy wrestling team, but it’s the same thing at core, just with different intentions.

            the difference is that you believe in benign dictatorship and i do not.

            further, you are making a bad logical jump in your discussions and using jim crow as a synonym for racism. jim crow was a symptom of racism, not the racism itself.

            if you recall those times, then i suspect you also recall that racism did not go away when the laws did.

            you cannot tell people what to think in a free society. that’s just how it is. you get to like coffee i get to like tea, whatever.

            this is what you keep missing.

            people have preferences. agreed?

            some may be benign and some prejudiced, but people have them.

            government cannot change that.

            preferences shape our consumption decisions. agreed?

            you may like pizza, i may like burgers, great we eat where we like. you may prefer a cheaper restaurant, i might like the one that has pretty waitresses. again, that’s out choice. you might be OK having a female proctologist, i might not be. whatever.

            those are realities.

            businesses must serve their customers demands or fail. agreed?

            if the customers have preferences, business must cater to them or face the costs associated with not doing so.

            perhaps you really want to give a chance to fat people with BO and halitosis so you hire them as your waitstaff.

            you are free to do that. i am also free to not eat at your restaurant because i find that unpleasant.

            again, there is no way to legislate around that even if it was a good idea, which it isn’t.

            so if people have preferences, preferences shape consumption, business must therefore be responsive to it, and nothing can change any of those things, then where is the argument for equal pay laws?

            the presumption is that government knows better than a business owner just what “equal work” is.

            the cold hard fact is that younger women are far more likely to leave work for extended periods than men. it’s the nature of child bearing in human biology. again, nothing is going to change that.

            if you were faced with 2 possible horses to buy, one that would work for a decade, and one that had a 50% chance of disappearing for 6 months to a year in year 4 and then might or might not ever come back but were otherwise in every way equal, would you value them differently when figuring out what to pay?

            i’ll bet you would. and if the government required you to pay the same for each, what would you do? you’d buy the first one. (which is to say, not hire women)

            then the government would say “you must hire 50% women” and you would be forced to pay more for somehting you value less not out of sexism but out of simple financial calculation.

            you’d lose out and be forced to make decision you felt were bad because someone else was telling you what to think about “equal work”.

            part of equal work is “will you be here next year and so should i train you or worry about how to replace you”.

            if you believe that such a determination is better made in DC than where the hiring and work takes place, that i really do not know what to tell you.

          19. morganovich

            ron-

            yes. precisely.

            if it says:

            menu

            with no caps, that’s a dead giveaway.

          20. how about the right of someone to the same public accommodations as others regardless of race?

            I’m glad you asked. I would *discriminate* between public and private.

            Public streets, sidewalks, buildings, parks, highways, forests, etc., etc. should be available to everyone equally, as a person’s race, gender, height, weight, eye color or shirt size should not be a concern of government. Public employment should be available equally to everyone for the same reason, based solely on ability to do the job. Admission to public schools and universities should likewise be determined by ability to perform and hopefully succeed ONLY, not by race, gender, or any other demographic.

            Private property is a different matter. In my home, I can allow or not allow anyone I wish for ANY REASON I choose. No one has a right to enter my home unless I invite them. I will make the rules, and entry will depend on compliance with my rules, or I may eject anyone I wish for any reason I wish.

            I can require a guest in my house to remove their shoes, wear a blue dress, or speak only Lithuanian (although I would be unable to determine compliance).

            I can exclude blacks, whites, women, men, Asians, Lithuanians, short people, vegetarians or anyone else I wish to exclude.

            So far so good?

            are you opposed to the public accommodation laws?

            I am opposed to laws that require private property owners to allow people on their property who they don’t wish to admit.

            is it okay for someone in business to say ” we do not serve your “kind” here” if they are using public infrastructure and services?

            Yes. It is OK for a private property owner to choose who may enter their property. I use public services and infrastructure at my home, and I can decide who comes in. Why should any private property be different? Keep in mind that excluding paying customers carries a price. It means your competitors, who serve everyone, have an advantage.

            No one has a “right” that requires someone else to act. You have no right to food, housing, medical care, clothing, or education if those require that someone else provide them for you. You have no right to be on private property if the owner doesn’t want you there, therefore, you have no “right” to service at a private restaurant or any other private business. Your rights are negative – to be left alone to pursue your own ends without interference from others.

            As morganovich has previously explained it, you have all the rights you would have if you were alone on a desert island.

          21. ” “are you opposed to the public accommodation laws?”

            I am opposed to laws that require private property owners to allow people on their property who they don’t wish to admit.

            “is it okay for someone in business to say ” we do not serve your “kind” here” if they are using public infrastructure and services?”

            so you believe that the public accommodation law is illegal?

          22. larry g never foregoes the opportunity to embarrass himself ron,,,

          23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

            circa 1967

            What point were you trying to make here, mine – that discrimination was the law? Are you now agreeing with me? What are you doing, Larry?

            When I wrote “I see what you mean” I was refuting your claim that whites wouldn’t allow blacks to touch anything they owned. Did you miss the point of the pictures that whites trusted blacks to care for that which they valued most – their children?

            Why am I having to spell this out for you?

          24. that discrimination was the law? Are you now agreeing with me? What are you doing, Larry?

            did you NOT read when I said laws AND customs ?

            re:touching – SOME were THIS RABID – others just wouldn’t touch what they touched – like water fountains.

            you purposely believe only what you wish guy and you purposely do not want to know the truth because it messes up your beliefs.

          25. Allow me to rephrase one of my previous answers slightly.

            Larry: ” are you opposed to the public accommodation laws?

            Me: “I am opposed to laws that require private property owners to allow people on their property who they don’t wish to admit“, as I am opposed to laws that require private property owners to deny entrance to some people they may wish to admit.

          26. ” I am opposed to laws that require private property owners to allow people on their property who they don’t wish to admit“, as I am opposed to laws that require private property owners to deny entrance to some people they may wish to admit.”

            laws that require private property owners to deny entrance to some people (even if their criteria is all blacks and they have a sign in the window) they may wish to admit?

            so you DO support that, right?

            answer:

          27. morganovich

            I am opposed to laws that require private property owners to allow people on their property who they don’t wish to admit“, as I am opposed to laws that require private property owners to deny entrance to some people they may wish to admit.”

            laws that require private property owners to deny entrance to some people (even if their criteria is all blacks and they have a sign in the window) they may wish to admit?

            so you DO support that, right?

            answer:

            the answer is, yet again larry, that you are missing the key distinction here.

            a law that says “you must not allow larry into your house” is not the same as saying “you may let whoever you like into your house and deny entrance to whomever you like as well”

            do you really not see that these are totally different?

            the former takes away your liberty. the latter grants it.

            the fact that you somehow see it as inconsistent to believe that one can simultaneously oppose a law requiring that i ban you from my home and support a law allowing me to ban you puzzles me.

            do you not see the difference between require and allow?

          28. @Morg

            the answer is, yet again larry, that you are missing the key distinction here.

            ok… I think I see it though…

            a law that says “you must not allow larry into your house” is not the same as saying “you may let whoever you like into your house and deny entrance to whomever you like as well”

            house vs a business that serves the public on a public road, infrastructure, facility…

            At the Mall – a guy that sells kumquats has a sign that says ” we do not serve Muslims”.

            do you really not see that these are totally different?

            I think I understand your point but do you distinguish between a private home and a business that serves the public?

            the former takes away your liberty. the latter grants it.

            agreed.

            the fact that you somehow see it as inconsistent to believe that one can simultaneously oppose a law requiring that i ban you from my home and support a law allowing me to ban you puzzles me.

            I see the home as different from a business.

            do you not see the difference between require and allow?

            yes.. but the law says “public accommodation.

            do you believe that law is wrong?

          29. morganovich

            a business on private property is the same as a home.

            your home is on a public road too and anyone ought to be able to use that road. but your property is your property.

            if you own land, you get to decide who comes on it.

            why does running a business make that any different?

            the distinction you are drawing seems arbitrary.

            why would liberty that you posses in your home and suddenly lose it by engaging in business?

            i do not see how they are any different.

            you seem to be making the assumption that as soon as you serve others, it somehow makes you a public utility.

            why would that be so?

          30. why does running a business make that any different?

            because you’re serving the public.

            the distinction you are drawing seems arbitrary.

            it’s not my distinction, its the law and a whole bunch of elected people that agree with it – as well as me.

            why would liberty that you posses in your home and suddenly lose it by engaging in business?

            because you’re serving the public.

            i do not see how they are any different.

            you don’t. I know of no elected officials that agree with you.

            you seem to be making the assumption that as soon as you serve others, it somehow makes you a public utility.

            it puts you into a different circumstance
            why would that be so?

            ” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (“public accommodations”).

            are you saying that you consider the Civil Rights Act as wrong?

            Can you name any major officials who advocate it’s repeal?

          31. morganovich

            larry-

            you are now descending into appeal to practice fallacies again.

            who is this “public” you claim a business serves?

            and why must a business serve the public? that’s patently untrue.

            i went to a private high school. it did not serve “the public”. it served its students.

            almost no business agrees to serve everyone. in fact most “reserve the right to refuse service for any reason”.

            so if i have a yard, i can decide who can come in it.

            if i put a lemonade stand in my yard to sell beverages, suddenly i lose that right?

            by what sysyem of logic does that hold?

            you are not making any sense at all, just appealing to erroneous claims about what elected officials think.

            who gives a damn what they think? elected officials cannot tell you who to let in your house. why do they get to tell you who comes in your business.

            your logic seems to be that a home is private property but a business somehow becomes a public good. that’s absurd, arbitrary, and inconsistent.

            either property is private or it’s not. the use to which it is put makes no difference.

            either you have the right to determine who uses your property or you do not.

            if you believe that you have these rights in your home, there is no logical basis that you lose them if you use it for business.

            pointing to a pile of bad laws demonstrates nothing.

            jim crow was once the law too. that did not make it any less an affront to liberty.

            you seem to be on both sides of this issue.

            you oppose jim crow because it takes away liberty, but then you support taking away liberty if it’s “for a good reason”.

            good reason is subjective. people thought jim crow had good reasons too. did that make them right?

            your view is pure hypocrisy and completely internally inconsistent. you claim that open access is good and point to a law to demonstrate it but then also claim that jim crow laws that were every bit as democratic were bad.

            pick a side of the street and live on it lar. you are completely at odds with yourself on this issue and using logical fallacies to try to make you point.

            it’s also factually wrong. lots of elected officials and laws are fine with preferencing on race or sex.

            what, you’ve never seen an all girl school? a minority student union funded with public money?

          32. you are now descending into appeal to practice fallacies again.

            who is this “public” you claim a business serves?

            and why must a business serve the public? that’s patently untrue.

            I’m “descending” by pointing out the law?

            “i went to a private high school. it did not serve “the public”. it served its students.”

            and did it have to admit blacks?

            “almost no business agrees to serve everyone. in fact most “reserve the right to refuse service for any reason”.”

            does that break the law?

            “so if i have a yard, i can decide who can come in it.

            if i put a lemonade stand in my yard to sell beverages, suddenly i lose that right?”

            yes according to the law.

            by what sysyem of logic does that hold?

            the Laws passed by the elected leaders.

            you are not making any sense at all, just appealing to erroneous claims about what elected officials think.

            @Morg – how are they erroneous. my position is consistent with the law. I support the law. If I said something that is not consistent with the law, point it out and I’ll backtrack.

            “who gives a damn what they think? elected officials cannot tell you who to let in your house. why do they get to tell you who comes in your business.”

            now we’re at the real point here. the law is a “logical fallacy”, right?

            “your logic seems to be that a home is private property but a business somehow becomes a public good. that’s absurd, arbitrary, and inconsistent.”

            it’s the law….

            either property is private or it’s not. the use to which it is put makes no difference.

            by law, private property that is engaged in serving the public cannot refuse to serve on the basis of race, gender, national origin, etc.

            “either you have the right to determine who uses your property or you do not.

            if you believe that you have these rights in your home, there is no logical basis that you lose them if you use it for business.

            pointing to a pile of bad laws demonstrates nothing.

            jim crow was once the law too. that did not make it any less an affront to liberty.

            you seem to be on both sides of this issue.”

            again.. you keep wanting to make this personal guy.

            I support the law -I believe the law is correct.

            you oppose jim crow because it takes away liberty, but then you support taking away liberty if it’s “for a good reason”.

            using the word “liberty” in a context involving the govt and individual rights is not going to deal with the realities because govt – elected by a majority of people has rights also and they can restrict your rights.

            good reason is subjective. people thought jim crow had good reasons too. did that make them right?

            your view is pure hypocrisy and completely internally inconsistent. you claim that open access is good and point to a law to demonstrate it but then also claim that jim crow laws that were every bit as democratic were bad.

            pick a side of the street and live on it lar. you are completely at odds with yourself on this issue and using logical fallacies to try to make you point.

            I’m at NO ODDS here. I support the law. period.

            it’s also factually wrong. lots of elected officials and laws are fine with preferencing on race or sex.

            not AGAINST race or gender though. Name some that support laws that favor discrimination against race or gender.

            what, you’ve never seen an all girl school? a minority student union funded with public money?

            how about naming a couple of examples and how they conform to the current public accommodation laws.

            can the same schools deny admission to blacks? Can there be all white private schools?

          33. morganovich

            here’s a simple way to look at it.

            surely, you are aware that scholarships exist that are solely given to black students or to women.

            many are publicly funded.

            how is that any different that a sign that says “blacks only” or “women only” or even “whites only”?

            there are lots of politicians who favor them as i am sure you know.

            but their basis for doing so is pure hypocrisy.

            these same politicians would oppose a “white men only” restaurant.

            they claim that discrimination is fine when it serves an end they approve of, but oppose it when it does not.

            that is pure hypocrisy and demolishes any claim you can make that the law provides justifications for your views.

            this is akin to being ok with vigilante murder so long as it was a “bad person” killed.

          34. so you DO support that, right?

            answer:

            Perhaps I wasn’t clear.

            I support private property rights. Period.

            I believe a private property owner should be able to allow whoever he wishes on his property for any reason.

            I believe a private property owner should be able to exclude anyone he wishes from his property for any reason.

            I do NOT believe the law should prohibit a private property owner from allowing anyone he wishes on his property. (legal forced segregation)

            I do NOT support forced segregation.

            I do NOT believe the law should force a private property owner to allow people on his property if he doesn’t want them there. (public accommodation legislation)

            I do NOT support forced integration.

            Basically I do not support *forced*.

          35. are you saying that you consider the Civil Rights Act as wrong?

            Yes, as it applies to “public accommodation”.

            Can you name any major officials who advocate it’s repeal?

            Irrelevant. Logical fallacy.

          36. “Can you name any major officials who advocate it’s repeal?”

            Irrelevant. Logical fallacy.

            Not when you are talking about REALITY.

            That’s the problem with you guys.

            You disavow REALITY. You advocate for theoretical things that will never happen and you call all the people who support the public accommodation laws – ignorant and mis-guided… to include all of Congress, the POTUS and the SCOTUS

            but … it’s a logical fallacy…

            ;-)

          37. At the Mall – a guy that sells kumquats has a sign that says ” we do not serve Muslims”.

            That is his loss. He is really saying: “I don’t want to sell as many kumquats as I could otherwise, I would prefer not to associate with Muslims”. “I’m willing to forgo sales to indulge my bias”. It’s really stupid.

            That sounds like a really a good opportunity for someone to park themselves right near him with a sign that says “we serve everyone”. Who do you think would sell more kumquats?

            You really don’t want to dictate with whom a person MAY associate nor do you want to dictate with whom they MUST associate.

          38. ” You really don’t want to dictate with whom a person MAY associate nor do you want to dictate with whom they MUST associate.”

            oh but we do when it comes to public accommodations, and I know of no elected official who advocates otherwise.

            do you?

          39. it’s also factually wrong. lots of elected officials and laws are fine with preferencing on race or sex.

            what, you’ve never seen an all girl school? a minority student union funded with public money?

            A Congressional Black Caucus?

          40. re: ” A Congressional Black Caucus?”

            true! but it’s a group guy LIKE the KKK or White Brotherhood or whatever…

            you CAN associated with whoever you want to.

            are you purposely (again) evading?

          41. Ques: “why does running a business make that any different?</i."

            Ans: "because you’re serving the public.

            Ques: “why would liberty that you posses in your home and suddenly lose it by engaging in business?

            Ans: “because you’re serving the public.

            You are going in a circle here, Larry:

            Q: Why does serving the public make that any different?

            A: Because you’re serving the public.

          42. Q: Why does serving the public make that any different?

            A: Because you’re serving the public.

            because the law considers it a violation of the rights of those who would conduct business with a business that was conducting business with the public.

            the law has made that distinction because, in part, of Equal Protection rights.

            Do you know any elected officials who believe this law is wrong?

          43. That’s the problem with you guys.

            You disavow REALITY. You advocate for theoretical things that will never happen and you call all the people who support the public accommodation laws – ignorant and mis-guided… to include all of Congress, the POTUS and the SCOTUS

            Typical meaningless bullshit from Larry.

            Me:”You really don’t want to dictate with whom a person MAY associate nor do you want to dictate with whom they MUST associate.”

            You: “oh but we do when it comes to public accommodations, and I know of no elected official who advocates otherwise.

            do you?

            Yes, Larry, the Congressional Black Caucus.

            re: ” A Congressional Black Caucus?”

            true! but it’s a group guy LIKE the KKK or White Brotherhood or whatever…

            No, Larry the KKK and White Brotherhood are private organizations. A comparable private black group would be the Black Panthers.

            The CBC is a group of black *elected officials* who meet on public property and use public infrastructure and services. They do not allow white members. They are openly practicing discrimination based on race, something you claim no elected official favors. They are in direct violation of the civil rights act of 1964.

            Would you be OK with a Congressional White Caucus?

          44. [civil rights act of 1964] “The vast majority of people support it and I know of no elected official past or present who opposes it.”

            That’s a pretty careless statement. The act was passed by the House 290–130. and by the Senate 73–27. That doesn’t support your claim that “no elected official past or present opposes it”.

          45. ” That’s a pretty careless statement. The act was passed by the House 290–130. and by the Senate 73–27. That doesn’t support your claim that “no elected official past or present opposes it”.”

            it was.. past after passage and in recent years.

            let’s pick 25 years.. name the elected who were in favor of repeal?

            Jesse helms? George Wallace?

          46. so you do support the right to discriminate against blacks, correct?

            That’s correct, but not just blacks, ANYONE. Have you been reading my comments? It should be crystal clear to anyone who can read above a third grade level that I support the right of a private property owner to deny access to anyone he chooses, and to allow access to anyone he chooses. Was that not clear?

            Now can you identify some elected or other academics or public policy figures who also support discrimination against blacks ?

            It doesn’t matter, Larry. That’s not relevant to the topic.

            how much support is there to repeal the civil rights act if it is a blatant restriction of rights?

            It doesn’t matter, Larry, that’s not relevant to the topic.

            YOU should be able to allow anyone you wish into your home, and deny entry to anyone you wish. If you ran a business on your property you should have exactly the same right. No one should have a right, despite the wording of the Civil rights Act, to enter your property if you don’t want them to.

          47. ” “how much support is there to repeal the civil rights act if it is a blatant restriction of rights?”

            It doesn’t matter, Larry, that’s not relevant to the topic.”

            It’s DIRECTLY RELEVANT and it demonstrates how far out of touch folks like you are in dealing with realities.

            this is a clear example of how the vast majority of people and elected official REJECT pure Libertarian dogma.

            this is the markets are NOT totally “free”. It’s not because people are ignorant – it’s because they reject discrimination against others and yes, they support some discrimination in favor of those who were wronged in the past – if they believe the scope and scale of the discrimination had multi-generational harmful impacts.

            In a pure Libertarian world – the answer to systemic and institutional racism is “tough cookies”.

          48. because the law considers it a violation of the rights of those who would conduct business with a business that was conducting business with the public.

            Huh?

            the law has made that distinction because, in part, of Equal Protection rights.

            Equal protection doesn’t include equal access to my private property, Larry.

            Do you know any elected officials who believe this law is wrong?

            Irrelevant, not related of the topic. “everyone thinks this is a good idea” is not a valid argument.

          49. govt – elected by a majority of people has rights also and they can restrict your rights.

            Government doesn’t have rights, government has powers. That’s an important distinction.

            Government currently has the *power* to kill me on the Presidents whim, to whisk me away to Gitmo forever without charges or access to legal representation, or to confiscate my property on the suspicion that it was in some way involved in illegal activity. That *power* is NOT legitimate, and has nothing to do with government rights, but everything to do with mine.

            The government *power* to force me to associate with people I don’t wish to associate with is not legitimate. Legal doesn’t equal legitimate or just.

            Don’t continue to defend “public accommodation” on the basis that it’s the law.

          50. Government doesn’t have rights, government has powers. That’s an important distinction.

            The govt authority derives from people concerned about their right.

            Government currently has the *power* to kill me on the Presidents whim, to whisk me away to Gitmo forever without charges or access to legal representation, or to confiscate my property on the suspicion that it was in some way involved in illegal activity. That *power* is NOT legitimate, and has nothing to do with government rights, but everything to do with mine.

            they also have the power to stop you from operating a racist business.

            The government *power* to force me to associate with people I don’t wish to associate with is not legitimate. Legal doesn’t equal legitimate or just.

            it is according to a majority of voters and who they elect.

            Don’t continue to defend “public accommodation” on the basis that it’s the law.

            It is what it is. In a country where people can vote for representation – and the Constitution gives the elected the right to pass laws that people want passed – it is the law.

            I’m not “defending” anything here other than the system of governance that we have that does provide for laws that people do want.

          51. you CAN associated with whoever you want to.

            Freedom of association means just that. Freedom to associate or NOT associate with whoever we wish.

            Jim Crow laws forbade a white owner to associate with blacks in my own private restaurant.

            the Civil Rights Act REQUIRES him to associate with anyone who chooses to come into my private restaurant.

            BOTH are wrong.

          52. Freedom of association means just that. Freedom to associate or NOT associate with whoever we wish.

            Jim Crow laws forbade a white owner to associate with blacks in my own private restaurant.

            the Civil Rights Act REQUIRES him to associate with anyone who chooses to come into my private restaurant.

            BOTH are wrong.

            if you happen to believe that “association” is the same as doing business with the public at large.

            racism – both culturally, institutionally, and legally was rampant and pervasive in the South and had the effect of economically damaging those who were the target of it.

            In other words, their rights to the same opportunities – such as education and jobs were systematically denied.

            you can defend it if you wish but most people do not.

          53. morganovich

            larry-

            your whole premise here is absurd for 2 reasons.

            1. you presume that you have a right to do business with me. that is not true. if you did, then i would have no right to chose with whom i did business. you are free to ask to invest in my fund. i am free to tell you no. you can ask to go to harvard. they are free to say no. you are free to ask to move into a co-op. the board can say no.

            the right you claim exists cannot exist without taking away my rights. it forces me to do somehting i may not wish to. thus, it cannot be a real right.

            2. your incessant claims about “reality” are just a symptom of your lack of understanding of this discussion (or any like it). it is not just a logical fallacy, but also internally contradictory.

            jim crow was once reality too. by your logic, that would justify it.

            you seem unable to separate the concepts of “this is the law” and “this should be the law” in your head.

            i have tried 100 times to explain this to you and have no more hope of success now that in the past. it’s clear you are incapable of escaping the fallacy of appeal to practice and perhaps even abstract thinking.

            try thinking of it this way:

            imagine there are no laws. imagine we are starting from a blank piece of paper. what sort of laws would we want? that’s the discussion here. your constant resort to “this is what the law says” demonstrates nothing. lots of bad laws have existed. i doubt you could possibly disagree with that. slavery was the law. jim crow was the law. women being unable to vote was the law. i doubt you would accept an argument that because they were, that justified them, even if they were democratically arrived at.

            so why should anyone accept such a justification about a current law? there mere existence of a thing does not make it good or right.

            the internal inconsistency of your arguments is glaring and provable. at some point, you are going to need to see that if you are ever going to develop a meaningful opinion on these issues.

          54. @Morg

            re: “your whole premise here is absurd”

            It’s not my premise,. It’s the law. It’s a 40 year old law.

            All I am doing is referring to the law – as written and of course I happen to agree with it but so do virtually all elected representatives as I have not heard any one of them advocate for repeal.

            The interesting thing is that Friedman argued against the Civil Rights Act at the time it was being made into law so his objections to it pre-date the law and his objections to it were at the very time that rampant racism was pervasive throughout the south – both legal, institutional and cultural and the people who were discriminated against – did suffer economically through jobs, housing, education, medical care and conducting business transactions.

            It’s not my premise guy. It’s the law that is almost 50 years old and in no danger of being repealed.

          55. morganovich

            as ron points out, it’s really this simple:

            the rules “you may not associate with larry” and “you must associate with larry” are both form of coercion that take away my right to free association.

            both are bad for the same reason.

            either you believe that we are free individuals and may choose our friends and business partners for ourselves based on whatever criteria seem relevant, or you believe that we are subjects of the state and that government has the right to force us to make choices about such things.

            it’s really that simple. the policies for which you argue are counter to personal liberty and free association.

            there is no consistent way to argue that the state has no right to prohibit association but does have the right to force it.

          56. morganovich

            larry-

            “It’s not my premise,. It’s the law. It’s a 40 year old law.

            All I am doing is referring to the law – as written and of course I happen to agree with it but so do virtually all elected representatives as I have not heard any one of them advocate for repeal.”

            i really do despair of ever getting you to think in anyhting other than circles.

            slavery was a 100 year old law. so what?

            you make appeals to practice and appeals to authority/consensus, both of which are logical fallacies.

            you point to a law as justification for itself. it’s an absurd, circular, meaningless argument that you just keep making again and again.

            your premise is that this law is good. you have not provided even a single valid reason why, just fallacy and circular reasoning that contradicts itself.

            if the law is good because it is the law and presumably the will of the majority, then slavery was good too at one time. the justification you keep tryign to use is one that you yourself reject around slavery and jim crow.

            majority support does not make a thing right, merely legal. if we all vote that you are now our indentured servant and must do all out household chores for no compensation, i doubt you would feel great about majority rule as a justification for it.

            the government should have absolutely no say in with whom you associate or do business. it’s that simple. if you claim it has a right to require you to let others associate with you, then the logic of such applies equally to allowing it to ban certain associations.

            you cannot support that civil rights law without also supporting jim crow and be internally consistent.

            they are the same thing: government limits on your right to free association. it’s just that you like the purported goal of one, but not the other.

            such selective application of principles is called hypocrisy.

            if a government has the power to force me to associate, then it also has the power to prevent me from doing so. you cannot have it both ways.

            at this point, and having explained this as many ways as i know how, i once more throw up my hands and admit myself unequal to the task of teaching you to think in a logical and consistent fashion.

            i shall return to teaching quantum mechanics to my cat as it has a far greater likelihood of success.

          57. slavery was a 100 year old law. so what?

            you make appeals to practice and appeals to authority/consensus, both of which are logical fallacies.

            no.. they are references to actual realities.

            you point to a law as justification for itself. it’s an absurd, circular, meaningless argument that you just keep making again and again.

            nope. the law exists because people think the law is correct and needed. that could change if they no longer support it.

            your premise is that this law is good. you have not provided even a single valid reason why, just fallacy and circular reasoning that contradicts itself.

            the law is good because institutional racism is repugnant to myself and the vast majority of others

            if the law is good because it is the law and presumably the will of the majority, then slavery was good too at one time. the justification you keep tryign to use is one that you yourself reject around slavery and jim crow.

            and the law changed when people saw it was racism.

            majority support does not make a thing right, merely legal. if we all vote that you are now our indentured servant and must do all out household chores for no compensation, i doubt you would feel great about majority rule as a justification for it.

            it makes it a reality though. majority rule is codified in our Constitution as the way we govern. I support it not because it’s perfect but because it better than the alternatives.

            the government should have absolutely no say in with whom you associate or do business. it’s that simple. if you claim it has a right to require you to let others associate with you, then the logic of such applies equally to allowing it to ban certain associations.

            that’s your view.. it’s not most people’s

            you cannot support that civil rights law without also supporting jim crow and be internally consistent.

            if the goal is to not have racism or at least not have it supported by law and custom – then it IS internally consistent to have laws that favor things that reduce racism.

            they are the same thing: government limits on your right to free association. it’s just that you like the purported goal of one, but not the other.

            such selective application of principles is called hypocrisy.

            if a government has the power to force me to associate, then it also has the power to prevent me from doing so. you cannot have it both ways.

            you’re not forced to associate no more than you are forced to do business with the public. You can have a private store that sells only to members but you cannot sell only to whites.

            at this point, and having explained this as many ways as i know how, i once more throw up my hands and admit myself unequal to the task of teaching you to think in a logical and consistent fashion.

            i shall return to teaching quantum mechanics to my cat as it has a far greater likelihood of success.

            good! you shouldn’t waste your skills with such futility. I agree. Use them on elected officials to change the laws.

          58. You: “how much support is there to repeal the civil rights act if it is a blatant restriction of rights?“”

            Me: “It doesn’t matter, Larry, that’s not relevant to the topic.”

            It’s DIRECTLY RELEVANT and it demonstrates how far out of touch folks like you are in dealing with realities.

            this is a clear example of how the vast majority of people and elected official REJECT pure Libertarian dogma.

            You have an inconsistent argument here, Larry. You are claiming that the will of the “vast majority” must be correct, in which case you must argue that the will of the “vast majority” was correct when blacks were denied equal access and when blacks were owned as slaves. You can’t have it two different ways.

            If you believe there are natural rights, or moral and ethical values that are superior to the will of the “vast majority”, then you can’t use that “will of the vast majority” argument as support, and it’s irrelevant what the “vast majority” thinks, or how many elected officials support or oppose the civil rights act.

            Then you are left with the argument that one person’s right to eat lunch wherever they please trumps another person’s right to control their own private property.

            In a pure Libertarian world – the answer to systemic and institutional racism is “tough cookies”.

            If you actually understood the subject, you would know that in a pure libertarian world systemic or institutional racism wouldn’t be possible.

          59. You have an inconsistent argument here, Larry. You are claiming that the will of the “vast majority” must be correct, in which case you must argue that the will of the “vast majority” was correct when blacks were denied equal access and when blacks were owned as slaves. You can’t have it two different ways.

            but I can because what I support is elected governance that reflects the wishes of those so governed.

            you reject that apparently even though it’s the de facto standard “best practice” for governance.

            “If you believe there are natural rights, or moral and ethical values that are superior to the will of the “vast majority”, then you can’t use that “will of the vast majority” argument as support, and it’s irrelevant what the “vast majority” thinks, or how many elected officials support or oppose the civil rights act.”

            I believe that in an elected governance, that people decide what rights are and are not.

            Then you are left with the argument that one person’s right to eat lunch wherever they please trumps another person’s right to control their own private property.

            nope. it’s when the exercise of your rights diminishes others rights.

            “In a pure Libertarian world – the answer to systemic and institutional racism is “tough cookies”.”

            If you actually understood the subject, you would know that in a pure libertarian world systemic or institutional racism wouldn’t be possible.

            you need to explain because in a pure Libertarian world everyone is free to not sell to “their kind”. right?

          60. In other words, their rights to the same opportunities – such as education and jobs were systematically denied.

            you can defend it if you wish but most people do not.

            Just what is there about the phrase “both are wrong” that leads you to believe I’m defending racial discrimination?

          61. re: ” leads you to believe I’m defending racial discrimination?”

            because just like Friedman back in 1962 at the height of pervasive racism against blacks, he, like you defends it by claiming that it’s not the business of the govt to protect the rights of those who are discriminated against.

          62. if you happen to believe that “association” is the same as doing business with the public at large.

            Is there some unique “Larry definition” I’m not aware of?

            How about “to be in the company of, or interact with”?

          63. How about “to be in the company of, or interact with”?

            is that the same as conducting business in a public establishment?

          64. morganovich

            but I can because what I support is elected governance that reflects the wishes of those so governed.

            is the greatest lie of all.

            you mean like slavery and jim crow reflected the wishes of black people?

            those were also the products of elected governments.

            this is why your argument is inconsistent.

            by your logic, such things were fine until we changed our minds. we could support any sort of tyranny or outrage so long as most were OK with it.

            yours is the logic of a tyrant, even if that tyrant is a majority.

            you either have a right to free association or you do not.

            if you do, the government can no more tell you who NOT to associate with than it can tell you who you MUST associate with.

            if you do not, then sure, the government can tell you who you must associate with, but it would also be able to who you may not associate with.

            you cannot apply a right selectively.

            a right to free speech unless you say something politically unpopular is not a right to free speech.

            a right to free association is no right at all if you may not exercise it to chose who not to associate with.

            this is the hard part about rights.

            i think all men (and women) have a right to free association.

            some people may use that right in a way i do not like. (such as having a whites only bathroom or a women’s only job program)

            but if i wish to have this right, i must accept that others have it as well.

            it’s clear that you do not believe in rights but rather a tyrannical majority, but i’ll bet you would change your tune if the majority voted to reinstate jim crow.

            if the majority voted to return to jim crow, would you agree and say that it was OK because it had majority support?

            answer that question. i’ll bet you would not.

            how about slavery? how about a nation where the majority right now believes in forced child marriages?

            so then what possible reason is there for us to accept your “the majority said so so it’s right” arguments?

            repeating it over and over will not make it a valid argument.

            if 51% of americans voted to enslave the other 49%, that would be OK? what about 90% enslaving 10%? that’s a far more solid majority than civil rights laws enjoy.

            by your logic, man has no liberty, just the forbearance of the majority.

            that is the logic of a slave or a subject, not a citizen.

          65. No, Morgan.

            Larry told me that he only believes that way when it’s for the good of the people.
            It’s all very clear and well thought out. Just ask him.

            I’m always happy to have folks like Larry around so I’m never the dumbest person here.

          66. @Morg

            re: “your whole premise here is absurd”

            It’s not my premise,. It’s the law. It’s a 40 year old law.

            ROFLMAO!

            Oh, please don’t write any more until I can catch my breath. This is just TOO FUNNY!

          67. but I can because what I support is elected governance that reflects the wishes of those so governed.

            Then you support the legality of slavery, which reflected the wishes of those so governed by elected governance.

            I believe that in an elected governance, that people decide what rights are and are not.

            Then you support the right of some people to own others as slaves. How disgusting.

            Me: “Then you are left with the argument that one person’s right to eat lunch wherever they please trumps another person’s right to control their own private property.

            You: “nope. it’s when the exercise of your rights diminishes others rights.

            Right. As in my right to be served lunch anywhere I please diminishes your right to control your own private property.

            You: “In a pure Libertarian world – the answer to systemic and institutional racism is “tough cookies”.

            Me: “If you actually understood the subject, you would know that in a pure libertarian world systemic or institutional racism wouldn’t be possible.

            you need to explain because in a pure Libertarian world everyone is free to not sell to “their kind”. right?

            In a libertarian world there can be no legitimate aggressive force used against others. That means no slavery, no separation of races, and no other form of institutional racism. People would be free to associate or not associate with whomever they wish, and would have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of their own ends (happiness) and property rights beginning with the concept that people own themselves, their bodies, and their wills. People can do whatever they wish as long as they don’t use unjust force against others.

            Just as you are free to buy from whomever you wish, you are free to sell to whomever you wish.

            Sounds good, doesn’t it?

          68. Then you support the legality of slavery, which reflected the wishes of those so governed by elected governance.

            As long as you keep the act of slavery separate from the governance process that legalized it.

            “I believe that in an elected governance, that people decide what rights are and are not.

            Then you support the right of some people to own others as slaves. How disgusting.

            now you’re running away. I said that people determine rights – not that I agree. I agree with the process of governance that allows people to elect their leaders and I acknowledge that wrong things sometimes result.

            Me: “Then you are left with the argument that one person’s right to eat lunch wherever they please trumps another person’s right to control their own private property.”

            You: “nope. it’s when the exercise of your rights diminishes others rights.”

            Right. As in my right to be served lunch anywhere I please diminishes your right to control your own private property.

            if you are using your private property to engage in business with the public – yes

            You: “In a pure Libertarian world – the answer to systemic and institutional racism is “tough cookies”.

            Me: “If you actually understood the subject, you would know that in a pure libertarian world systemic or institutional racism wouldn’t be possible.”

            “you need to explain because in a pure Libertarian world everyone is free to not sell to “their kind”. right?”

            In a libertarian world there can be no legitimate aggressive force used against others.

            really?

            That means no slavery, no separation of races, and no other form of institutional racism. People would be free to associate or not associate with whomever they wish, and would have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of their own ends (happiness) and property rights beginning with the concept that people own themselves, their bodies, and their wills. People can do whatever they wish as long as they don’t use unjust force against others.

            who would assure and enforce this? how would you deal with folks who would take others rights? Would you use force?

            Just as you are free to buy from whomever you wish, you are free to sell to whomever you wish.

            Sounds good, doesn’t it?

            racism does not sound good no matter how you spin it.

          69. Larry, you are hopelessly confused, making inconsistent arguments that change with every other comment, and are now just lying and making stuff up about previous statements and positions. There is no possible logical debate with you on this topic, so I’m done with you.

          70. …just lying and making stuff up about previous statements and positions“…

            Bingo ron h

          71. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

            been here long enough to know folks who don’t share your vhacky views get treated.

            i.e. if someone disagrees with the Libertarian view of the world – they are “confused”.. of course that means 98% of the planet…

          72. been here long enough to know folks who don’t share your vhacky views get treated“…

            Whacky eh larry g

            Yeah you’re right I didn’t support your man crush, this enlightened world traveler

            Yeah speaks volumes for whacky…

          73. and JuanDoze is a very serious competitor for Whackoo-in-chief… for sure!

          74. and JuanDoze is a very serious competitor for Whackoo-in-chief… for sure!“…

            Still working on that streak of non-stop stupid, eh larry g

            Isn’t it time for you to be offering up your daily hosannas to your man-crush?

          75. Larry, there is something you should consider:
            Yesterday, without any facts or evidence, you said I believed in helping myself at enormous cost to many. That would be you calling me a completely immoral person at best.

            You also said, with no evidence that, I believed in letting poor and elderly die on the steps of the ER. That would make me, what? A murderer at worst? Certainly a terrible person with no redeeming qualities…

            In response to these attacks, I called you a moron, using everything you had written as evidence…who treats who poorly? Weird that I might take offense to your constant mischaracterization and insults before retaliating.

            Just as the left does: prod, poke, play victim.

          76. Yesterday, without any facts or evidence, you said I believed in helping myself at enormous cost to many. That would be you calling me a completely immoral person at best.

            nope twice.

            You also said, with no evidence that, I believed in letting poor and elderly die on the steps of the ER. That would make me, what? A murderer at worst? Certainly a terrible person with no redeeming qualities…

            nope.

            In response to these attacks, I called you a moron, using everything you had written as evidence…who treats who poorly? Weird that I might take offense to your constant mischaracterization and insults before retaliating.

            these “attacks” were in your mind and no you don’t need any provocation to call someone a moron, it’s just your excuse.

            Just as the left does: prod, poke, play victim.

            right. you guys are the same. it’s name call those that disagree with you… it’s your predictable behavior, guy.

            and you refuse to even fess up to it.

          77. What do you mean by, “nope”, Larry?

            Are you denying you said these things? They’re right here on the board! Who can’t fess up???

            FYI, I don’t need an ‘excuse’ to say anything.
            You have no ability to admit when you’re in the wrong, dude. I would bet a decent sum that you live alone.

          78. yes I’m denying I said what you claim I said which is typical for you yahoos here…

            put the words here..

            Mike – you’re dishonest guy… that’s a big flaw.

          79. Oh, OK. So now I’m also a liar.

            If I take the time and go through all this to find the posts that I’m talking about and put them all together, will you admit you’re wrong and stop coming here?

          80. you put the words here that you are making the assertions about.

            otherwise, we DO KNOW what you ARE.

          81. 12/18 5:26pm

            “the people who attack the basis of the Civil Rights act are too cowardly to use the example of blacks, so they use women or they use racial preferences as surrogates for racial/gender discrimination in general.”

            -OK so, as a Libertarian who thinks these laws caused more problems than they solved, I’m a cowardly racist….

            12/18 7:29pm

            “the few that side with Friedman are viewed as fringe loonies – and in my view – should be.”

            -I’m a lunatic….

            12/19 3:23pm

            ME: “You also may want to consider, even though you don’t understand it, that I believe the libertarian philosophy does help more people.”

            YOU: “at the tremendous harm to others?”

            “Only folks like you, Friedman and Sowell disagree, the 1% who simply deny the realities and cling to their beliefs no matter what the world is doing.”

            -I believe in helping my few at ‘tremendous harm to others” ad I dent reality by clinging to my silly beliefs….

            12/19 4:16pm

            “they have some “flavor” of Libertarian but they will never buy the whole thing if it harms the vulnerable and innocent.”

            -I believe in harming the vulnerable and innocent….

            12/19 6:03pm

            “People will not let a child or elderly die on the steps of the ER from that point on… Libertarianism takes a beating.”

            -Heartless Murderer!

            Been nice knowing ya, Larry. I hope you find another poor bunch of saps to annoy soon! I certainly hope you’re a man of your word and I won’t see you here again…but I doubt it…

          82. 12/18 5:26pm

            “the people who attack the basis of the Civil Rights act are too cowardly to use the example of blacks, so they use women or they use racial preferences as surrogates for racial/gender discrimination in general.”

            -OK so, as a Libertarian who thinks these laws caused more problems than they solved, I’m a cowardly racist….

            did I say you?

            12/18 7:29pm

            “the few that side with Friedman are viewed as fringe loonies – and in my view – should be.”

            -I’m a lunatic….

            according to you?

            12/19 3:23pm

            ME: “You also may want to consider, even though you don’t understand it, that I believe the libertarian philosophy does help more people.”

            YOU: “at the tremendous harm to others?”

            “Only folks like you, Friedman and Sowell disagree, the 1% who simply deny the realities and cling to their beliefs no matter what the world is doing.”

            -I believe in helping my few at ‘tremendous harm to others” ad I dent reality by clinging to my silly beliefs….

            your “interpretation”?

            12/19 4:16pm

            “they have some “flavor” of Libertarian but they will never buy the whole thing if it harms the vulnerable and innocent.”

            -I believe in harming the vulnerable and innocent….

            again.. is that what I specifically said or your purposeful misrepresentation?

            12/19 6:03pm

            “People will not let a child or elderly die on the steps of the ER from that point on… Libertarianism takes a beating.”

            -Heartless Murderer!

            more purposeful recasting

            Been nice knowing ya, Larry. I hope you find another poor bunch of saps to annoy soon! I certainly hope you’re a man of your word and I won’t see you here again…but I doubt it…

            Mike – you’re dishonest. it’s no loss to see you go.

            you are unable or unwilling to dialogue honestly and accept other views. It’s either your view or they are morons. This seems to define a lot of folks like you – and yes I DID SAY THIS.

          83. You won’t even admit to the things you say. You’re a piece of shit, Larry. Really. Maybe the biggest piece of shit I’ve ever had the displeasure of holding some bizzaro dialogue with. You made a deal and now you should live with it. Go away.

            12/21/12 That last we hear from Larry the insane former teacher from Virginia?

          84. I don’t countenance liars Mike. You types seem to be around way too much these days. the world is what you want it to be or you’ll lie your butt off.

          85. You’re the only liar here, Larry. Too much of an anti-man to even take credit for the things you’ve written. What a joke of a human.

          86. I take credit for what I wrote but not what you dishonestly mischaracterized .. you’re no good guy.

            you should be ashamed. you must have learned how to do this long ago and now just consider it normal but it’s deeply dishonest.

            you cannot honestly dialogue with people when this is what you do. I have no respect for you at all.

          87. How in the world could I have possibly mischaracterized what you said?
            You said Libertarians are this….I am a Libertarian…ergo, I am those things.

            You said it, now you say I’ve twisted it. Since I did that in absolutely no way, that would make you the deeply dishonest one.
            I am happy to hear that you have no respect for me though. I would begin to question my character if you did.

        2. In the military your MOS can change in the amount of time it takes the First Sergeant to discover he’s two men short in the motor pool.

          ” and I would assert are far better than some idiot substituting their opinion rather than actual qualifications/training.”

          Ba-da-boom! Case closed

        3. Do you remember the civil war era and the equal rights for women era?

          Civil war era? No, I don’t remember it. My great-grandfather probably does, but we are not on speaking terms, so I can’t ask him about it.

          1. re: civil war! my BAD! Civil Rights ERA!

          2. re: ” “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”.

            you can do that in a private club on private property.

            Does a Restaurant Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service to Specific Patrons?
            No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

            http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

            this is a situation where there was no law REQUIRING discrimination as you have been claiming.

            this is a situation where someone would discriminate based on race on their own without a law requiring them to.

            and it was situations like this that led to the Civil Rights Act and the related laws about equal pay for equal work.

            and my original point was that if you make an argument against the equal pay for equal work and ignore the history that led to the law in the first place then you’re just not dealing with the issue in a fair way.

            This is not that different than the laws for some states that had a history of suppressing the black vote having to get Justice Dept approval to make changes in voting districts and the like. At least those states now acknowledge their role in the past and make the argument that they have changed.

            The problem with anti-discrimination laws is that the govt is indeed a bad moderation choice as opposed to the market – I agree – but to claim that the market never did discriminate and does not do so now or worse that it’s okay for the market to discriminate even on race – will not fly and those that make that argument essentially marginalize themselves especially in the eyes of people whose own parents and grand parents were actively discriminated against by law and by custom.

            If you took Friedmans’ essential argument and put it in the form of a national referendum – it would lose big in most but not all states probably along the lines of which ones voted for Obama which ones did not.

          3. Does a Restaurant Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service to Specific Patrons?
            No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964…blah blah blah.

            I understand what the law is, Larry, I’m telling you it is an infringement of private property rights, and is therefore not legitimate.

            No forced segregation in restaurants?

            Georgia

            “All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license.”

            Kentucky

            1908: Public Accommodation
            It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

            South Carolina

            No persons, firms, or corporations, who or which furnish meals to passengers at station restaurants or station eating houses, in times limited by common carriers of said passengers, shall furnish said meals to white and colored passengers in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter.

            Then you might want to look at various city ordinances.

            In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson ordered the segregation of the federal Civil Service.

          4. re: ” I understand what the law is, Larry, I’m telling you it is an infringement of private property rights, and is therefore not legitimate.”

            and so you do support discrimination, correct?

          5. “you can do that in a private club on private property.”

            Do you understand that I can operate a “private club” by signing up “members” as they come in the door? That means I can accept only people I want for membership & exclude everyone else.

            But, are there private clubs that AREN’T on private property?

          6. Do you understand that I can operate a “private club” by signing up “members” as they come in the door? That means I can accept only people I want for membership & exclude everyone else.

            But, are there private clubs that AREN’T on private property?

            well.. probably but there is a dividing line so that Denny’s cannot say they are a private club that signs up at the door.

          7. well.. probably but there is a dividing line so that Denny’s cannot say they are a private club that signs up at the door.

            Thanks for a great example, Larry.

            Denny’s certainly could become a private club and admit members only, meaning only those the Denny’s manager wished to admit, but by doing so, that store would almost certainly take a big hit on its bottom line due to fewer customers – not only those excluded but those who objected to such a policy – and that manager would be fired. Denny’s is more interested in its bottom line than anyone’s personal prejudices. The market imposes a cost on those who discrimination.

            If nothing else the Coco’s down the street would do more business serving former Denny’s customers.

          8. perhaps you could explain given the logic about good business practices you espoused how this happened:

            http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-25/news/mn-62027_1_civil-rights-advocates

            and in the 1960’s Ron, it was common for National Chain restaurants and motels in the South to turn away black “business”.. didn’t you know that?

          9. or this one Ron.. why would they do that if it cost them business?

            http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/companies/2004-05-07-cracker-barrel_x.htm

            or this:

            ” In early 1991, an intra-company memo called for employees to be dismissed if they did not display “normal heterosexual values”. According to news reports, at least 11 employees were fired under the policy on a store-by-store basis from locations in Georgia and other states”

            or this:

            ” In 2004, an investigation by the US Justice Department found evidence that Cracker Barrel had been segregating customer seating by race; seating or serving white customers before seating or serving black customers; providing inferior service to black customers, and allowing white servers to refuse to wait on black customers.”

          10. What does any of this have to do with equal gender pay?
            Why do you always have to drag the topic so far of the subject that it is in no way recognizable, Larry?

            Dr. Perry: Today, a video about pay equality.

            Larry: Ya know what? This reminds me of people who like dogs and can’t stand cats. Do you think it’s right that all those cats be killed every year at shelters just because they don’t bark and fetch? They’re just like dogs otherwise and they even have their own bathroom. There should be multiple laws against this.

          11. ” What does any of this have to do with equal gender pay?”

            because it’s a back-door way to attack the basis of the Civil Right Act which did address gender also.

            the people who attack the basis of the Civil Rights act are too cowardly to use the example of blacks, so they use women or they use racial preferences as surrogates for racial/gender discrimination in general.

            you can tell this because they completely ignore the original law and the why and how it came to be – the Civil Rights Act – to include now ADA.

            It’s the law of the land. The vast majority of people support it and I know of no elected official past or present who opposes it.

            and I ask those who oppose it to give some examples of public officials who would repeal it.

            Rand Paul started down that path last year and quickly retreated. I guess he’s not a man of principle when it comes to that issue, eh? why did he back up?

          12. “because it’s a back-door way to attack the basis of the Civil Right Act…”

            No. This isn’t an attack of any kind. This topic has nothing to do with reversing or changing anything (even if those things were questionable). It’s only about pushing back against another fallacy-based, not-necessary, gov’t intervention….fixing yet another “problem” that does not exist.

            “completely ignore the original law and the why and how it came to be – the Civil Rights Act – to include now ADA.”

            No. Actually just the opposite. It is to ignore how something like civil rights can be monster-sized into an untangleable clusterf**k like the ada. It is indisputable that the ada helps a dozen at a great cost to tens-of-thousands of others through abuse.

            “The vast majority of people support it and I know of no elected official past or present who opposes it.”

            Because they, like you, don’t understand how hurtful these ‘good intentions’ are.

            Of course no public official would speak out, they would get destroyed in 10 second sound-bites and appealing to the brilliant electorate would be pointless. People like you don’t understand the opposition or don’t want to and it’s just not worth trying to fix broken policy when you will be ultimately destroyed by a single sentence, “Candidate X hates crippled people…black peole….women…”

          13. re: ” fixing yet another “problem” that does not exist.”

            that’s how you characterize the Civil Rights Act?

            re: ” “The vast majority of people support it and I know of no elected official past or present who opposes it.”

            Because they, like you, don’t understand how hurtful these ‘good intentions’ are.

            Of course no public official would speak out, they would get destroyed in 10 second sound-bites and appealing to the brilliant electorate would be pointless. People like you don’t understand ”

            then how did the law get passed in the first place and how come it’s never been repealed?

            are you saying that virtually all Americans are “clueless” since polls seem to show that a huge majority support the Civil Right Act and what it seeks to do.

            are you once again rejecting the idea of Governance that is elected to do what people support?

            Most folks in this country do not want discrimination based on race, gender, etc.

            and you seem to think that all these people, elected officials, Doctors, CEOs, etc are “misguided”?

          14. “that’s how you characterize the Civil Rights Act?”

            -Not what I said.

            “then how did the law get passed in the first place and how come it’s never been repealed?”

            -Thousands of asinine laws are passed and not repealed. Not sure I understand your question.

            “are you saying that virtually all Americans are clueless”

            -Absolutely.

            “are you once again rejecting the idea of Governance that is elected to do what people support?”

            -Yes. But I do not think that people ‘support’ as much as they are ‘sold’. They would have to understand the consequences to be able to truly support something and majorities do not take the time.

            “and you seem to think that all these people, elected officials, Doctors, CEOs, etc are “misguided”?”

            -As usual, you take an assumed point and make it a fact to somehow try to sway your argument. Inevitably you end up confusing the issue and yourself in the process. If you don’t think there’s a difference between the personal philosophy of non-discrimination and not liking the outcomes of sweeping federal law….oh, what am I saying? Of course you don’t understand the difference.

          15. ” Inevitably you end up confusing the issue and yourself in the process. If you don’t think there’s a difference between the personal philosophy of non-discrimination and not liking the outcomes of sweeping federal law….oh, what am I saying? Of course you don’t understand the difference.”

            is THAT what Friedman and Sowell are advocating?

            the “confusion” you speak of is obfuscation on your part to evade the core of the issue – as usual.

            Neither of these two gentlemen are opining about personal behaviors. They are instead talking about laws that addressed institutional and pervasive cultural discrimination and they both use sly back-door approaches to cherry-pick smaller issue and evade dealing up front and head on with what they are really advocating. It’s a bit cowardly in my view but typical for these kinds of folks.

          16. “is THAT what Friedman and Sowell are advocating?”

            -Perhaps you should try reading it.

            “the “confusion” you speak of is obfuscation on your part to evade the core of the issue – as usual.”

            -Naturally. Funny how you’re the only one who’s never confused.

            “Neither of these two gentlemen are opining about personal behaviors.”

            – They’re also not talking about civil rights, but why would that stop you from muddying the waters?

          17. ” – They’re also not talking about civil rights, but why would that stop you from muddying the waters?”

            Friendman said “laws” right? what laws?

          18. “Friendman said “laws” right? what laws?”

            I’m not a lawyer, but I would assume he’s talking about the stretching of civil discrimination laws to the point that people aren’t allowed to hire at varying rates of pay, regardless of reason.

          19. ” I’m not a lawyer, but I would assume he’s talking about the stretching of civil discrimination laws ”

            I don’t think you need to be a lawyer to understand what laws he is talking about. He says laws., what laws?
            is he talking about ALL laws? How can you give a speech about the wrongness of laws without drawing a connection between what you say is wrong and the laws that require it.

            come on guy… fess up here.

          20. I told you which laws I believed were discussed. Do I really have to name the specific law for you?
            Of course I do. And every public official that may or may not support them in Portugal…I know, Larry.

          21. re: ” I told you which laws I believed were discussed. Do I really have to name the specific law for you?
            Of course I do. And every public official that may or may not support them in Portugal…I know, Larry.”

            if someone is going to complain about laws they don’t like – yes..they need to name the laws. otherwise are you just complaining about laws you think you know and don’t really?

            or if you are Friedman.. and you don’t specify the offending laws then what are you really saying? that you don’t like laws in general ?

            that’s the problem with Friedman and Sowell and like-minded. They argue in general terms about things not specific – as a generalized opposition to a concept more than anything real.

            but no shortage of people who will post their video as if it had something meaningful to say.

            One can go out on their own and look for the relevant laws but the major one that ended up being the root of others was the Civil Rights Act and unless Friendman overtly disavows that that is the act he talking about and instead names something else – what are we to believe what he is really saying?

            and why in the world would you believe someone who is talking in that way – either?

          22. “if someone is going to complain about laws they don’t like – yes..they need to name the laws.”

            I must be correct in assuming that you have never had to deal with laws and regs when hiring a person. You would not question their existence if you’d ever been in a hiring, managing or ownership position.

            Are you saying that my inability to pull a name out of my ass means that these laws do not exist? They do not have to specifically say that ‘X v X’ in 1997 awarded millions of dollars to “plaintiff” because she could ‘prove’ in a civil case that she made less than a reasonably similar male.
            I know they exist. He doesn’t (nor do I) need to be that specific when casually discussing system politics and the drive currently underway for more stupid laws.

            I think what you’re saying is: if a million horrible laws found their conception in the basic civil rights laws, they must be ok and who cares if they end up hurting those they claim to help. What I’m saying is pretty simple: I don’t care how good the original law may have been, the creeping reach of the federal govt is slowly stealing your freedom and mine. The difference between us is that I care about things like that and you seem to appreciate mothering from Uncle Sam.

          23. ” You would not question their existence if you’d ever been in a hiring, managing or ownership position.”

            sure you would. You’d need to know which laws to ask your elected to repeal, right?

            it just seems dumb to complain about generic laws that you really have no clue about.

            In Friedman’s case, he is apparently opposed to ALL laws that deal with discrimination and he believed that if people wanted to discriminate against blacks, it was their right to do so even if it ended up institutional and formalized as laws.

            This might be good for anti-govt speeches but it don’t do squat to deal with unintended consequences of some laws that perhaps need to be changed.

            but very few people that I know and not a single elected official save for Rand Paul who quickly reversed his statement, would advocate for repeal of the Civil Rights Act.

            So what Friendman argues for is fundamentally and almost universally rejected by the vast majority of Americans and their elected officials.

            the few that side with Friedman are viewed as fringe loonies – and in my view – should be.

            Most people want as Libertarian an economic framework as practical but they part company with those who want a pure system.

            that’s the reality.

          24. “sure you would. You’d need to know which laws to ask your elected to repeal, right?”

            -Do you think for a second that I’d copy and paste this idiotic conversation and send it to my rep? I’d probably take the time to be more specific if that was the case.

            “it just seems dumb to complain about generic laws that you really have no clue about.”

            -Seems dumber to support laws you have absolutely no clue about. I know all I need to know about what I’m against because I have experienced and understand how they affect me and others, you, on the other hand, have limited grasp of the problems these laws you support cause.

            “the few that side with Friedman are viewed as fringe loonies..”

            -You don’t understand a single thing he says. Not an insult, just fact based on everything you say. Many people in science and philosophy (who turned out to be right) were once vied this way by simpletons and protectionists.

            Buy yourself some easy reading for Christmas

            http://www.amazon.com/Applied-Economics-Thinking-Beyond-Stage/dp/0465003451

            http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Facts-Fallacies-Second-Edition/dp/0465022030/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_z

          25. how many elected support what you support?

            how many elected support what Freedman advocated for?

            if you cannot in good conscience name a single elected official then I stick to “fringe loonie” for the description.

          26. Larry,
            I’m not sure why you’re so hung up on the bizarre notion that the fame-seeking, less-than-honorable members of congress must share my thoughts for them to be legitimate. Do you have any idea how that sounds? It may be the most incredibly shallow thought process I’ve ever encountered.

            Just so I’m clear… are you saying that, not-too-many-years ago, when one couldn’t find a single person in Washington to say they were for gay marriage, those who thought that gay rights should be equal were fringe lunatics? What does that make the former fringe lunatics now?
            I can only assume, since no member of congress outwardly supported gay rights at one point, you also discriminated against them. Do you still hate them today or did you change your mind when congress told you that you could?

            Anyway, to answer your weird question: My representative and senator both believe that the gender pay issue is nonsense. I can’t speak to some odd ‘repealing of civil rights laws’ (since nobody ever said anything about that except you) but if you’d like a pretty good head count of those who believe that one shouldn’t discriminate, but that idiotic laws, taped together and stacked on top of each other end up hurting everybody, I’d suggest checking a list of people who are against hate crime laws.

            Do you really not understand any of this, Larry? Really?

          27. re: ” fringe lunatics? ”

            those who find themselves in the 1% …. and won’t admit it.

            re: equal pay vs Civil Rights

            where did the concept of equal pay for equal rights come from?

            Did you know that in 1962 Friedman was saying the same thing he said years later .. and that his reference of black people was “Negro”?

            Now what kind of white person in the Civil Rights era would call a black person a negro?

            would you say the man did not identify well with that race?

          28. You didn’t answer a single question of mine, Larry.

            That can only mean one thing, you hate gay people.

          29. ” Just so I’m clear… are you saying that, not-too-many-years ago, when one couldn’t find a single person in Washington to say they were for gay marriage, those who thought that gay rights should be equal were fringe lunatics? What does that make the former fringe lunatics now?
            I can only assume, since no member of congress outwardly supported gay rights at one point, you also discriminated against them. Do you still hate them today or did you change your mind when congress told you that you could?”

            the difference is people working IN FAVOR of more equal rights RATHER than working to undermine and in the wings, you have potential supporters waiting to jump in and do the right thing when it feels right.

            This is how the Civil Rights Act came to be – even in the face of a virulent racist culture. At some point enough people decided to step forward and do the right thing.

            As opposed to those who would work in opposition to equal rights and who stay int he shadows and seldom have large numbers waiting in the wings to do the “right” thing.

            see the difference?

            If you think something is wrong but there are those who would come after you for stepping up – then you wait to time your moves. That one percent is smart enough to have a pragmatic sense of what can change, how much can change and when.,

            Those who work against others don’t have such a strategy …they just have virulence that ignores the realities and has no real strategy because no one is waiting in the wings to help because they know if they step forward it would be a suicide mission.

            We’ve always had racists among us. Still do. They are the dark side of our human traits. We do not admire it. We tolerate it when we must and make it illegal when we can.

          30. You still didn’t answer my question, Larry.

            You said several times, without condition, that 1% or so who believed something with no backing from elected officials are fringe lunatics.

            So, were you a gay rights lunatic, did you change your mind when your keepers told you to or do you still hate gay people?

            You also may want to consider, even though you don’t understand it, that I believe the libertarian philosophy does help more people. So…I guess it’s you that doesn’t see the difference. You should also do some real research into the civil rights movement. The governments response was actually late and ended up hurting black people…ya know, if you believe things like every stat available.

          31. You said several times, without condition, that 1% or so who believed something with no backing from elected officials are fringe lunatics.

            they had backing. they were waiting on timing and they were working on something to HELP people RAther THAN HARM THEM.

            So, were you a gay rights lunatic, did you change your mind when your keepers told you to or do you still hate gay people?

            huh? I never hated them guy.

            “You also may want to consider, even though you don’t understand it, that I believe the libertarian philosophy does help more people.”

            at the tremendous harm to others?

            ” So…I guess it’s you that doesn’t see the difference. You should also do some real research into the civil rights movement. The governments response was actually late and ended up hurting black people…ya know, if you believe things like every stat available.”

            If you think the Civil Rights Law harmed blacks you are truly delusional as well as fringe lunatic.

            99 44/100% of blacks will disagree with you.

            Only folks like you, Friedman and Sowell disagree, the 1% who simply deny the realities and cling to their beliefs no matter what the world is doing.

          32. OK, so you were a fringe lunatic for gay rights. Now we’re getting somewhere.

            It’s absolutely shocking that you could come to this board as much as you do and still not understand a single item on the Libertarian menu.
            Do you honestly believe that we are for helping some at the cost of many? That is econ externality no-no 101, Larry….maybe pre-econ.

            I know this goes against everything you’re about, but try reading Sowell’s take on civil rights laws. I’m sure that you won’t agree that a 70-year-old black man knows more than you, but try it with an open mind.

            You really still have zero grasp of the counter-intuitive nature of the things we’re discussing. Truly remarkable.

            By the way…just fyi nearly 15% of American voters now have Libertarian views (and growing). Not 1…so you can quit saying that.

          33. OK, so you were a fringe lunatic for gay rights. Now we’re getting somewhere.

            nope. I supported equal rights but also pragmatic enough to know and accept that enough others have to arrive at that same place before change can happen.

            that’s a difference between me and you guy

            It’s absolutely shocking that you could come to this board as much as you do and still not understand a single item on the Libertarian menu.
            Do you honestly believe that we are for helping some at the cost of many? That is econ externality no-no 101, Larry….maybe pre-econ.

            I don’t buy your premise because your premise fails in real life

            I know this goes against everything you’re about, but try reading Sowell’s take on civil rights laws. I’m sure that you won’t agree that a 70-year-old black man knows more than you, but try it with an open mind.

            Sowell is a bomb-throwing kook!

            You really still have zero grasp of the counter-intuitive nature of the things we’re discussing. Truly remarkable.

            blah blah blah… go suck a lemon guy

            By the way…just fyi nearly 15% of American voters now have Libertarian views (and growing). Not 1…so you can quit saying that.

            they have some “flavor” of Libertarian but they will never buy the whole thing if it harms the vulnerable and innocent.

            huge flaw for Libertarian wannabes, eh?

          34. “that’s a difference between me and you guy”

            -That’s far from the only difference, but you are correct. When rights are being trampled, I choose not to sit idly and wait for ‘things to change for them’. Without the lunatic fringe 1%ers’, no change would ever happen to wait for, you moron.

            “I don’t buy your premise because your premise fails in real life”

            -It doesn’t fail in real life, dummy. That’s the whole point of the data/human action information we discuss. When these things are tried, they work until they are watered down by power-grabbers.

            “Sowell is a bomb-throwing kook”

            -Example? Of course you have none, you have never read anything he’s written.

            “they have some “flavor” of Libertarian but they will never buy the whole thing if it harms the vulnerable and innocent.”

            – Oh, so some of it is OK according to Larry? I’d love to know what parts those are…so would you, I’d wager.

          35. re: ” Without the lunatic fringe 1%ers’, no change would ever happen to wait for, you moron.”

            well another difference is infantile behavior.. that folks like you seem to not be able to control..yet another quality of the fringe lunatics.

            change happens when enough people want it. I does not happen when the 1% spend their time calling others morons and such…

            I support and abide by our form of governance. There are things I do not like but as long as the majority solidly is behind it then so be it – work for change – but be patient and tolerant and accept the reality that some things may never change to suit you.

          36. Infantile behavior? Coming from the man who just told me to go suck a lemon? I will however support infantile behavior over adolescent thinking….actually, strike that, many adolescents have a far more independent nature than to just do as the majority tells them…thank God.

          37. ” Infantile behavior? Coming from the man who just told me to go suck a lemon? I will however support infantile behavior over adolescent thinking….actually, strike that, many adolescents have a far more independent nature than to just do as the majority tells them…thank God.”

            I usually return the favor. suck a lemon was a gimme.

            we don’t do what the majority tells us to do – we recognize what it means in terms of advocating for change and plan accordingly instead of having hissy fits and other infantile behavior that seems to be fairly common among the self-proclaimed Libertarians who frequent these threads.

            I know you can be polite if you try.

          38. Actually, Larry, the “hissy fits” have little to do with difference in opinion, (one of my better friends is actually a communist and we have a great exchange) they are nearly 100% of the time due to the exhausting effort it takes to get extremely simple thoughts into a head like yours for consideration….then to be completely and repeatedly mischaracterized over and over tends to make even the most patient unwilling to be overly courteous.

          39. Mike – it’s a different view and it’s an honest and principled view.. we just don’t agree but I usually won’t call names unless they start on the other side.

            the name-calling degrades the dialogue and sidetracks the points.

            I actually believe in Libertarian principles but I’m pragmatic about the possibility that we’ll ever have solid majority support for the more pure variants of it.

            People will not let a child or elderly die on the steps of the ER

            from that point on… Libertarianism takes a beating.

          40. That’s the point, Larry. You don’t care to dig into the counterintuitive proposals (and past practices that worked) to see where you are mistaken about libertarian views. You sound like a typical liberal dem talking point in the way you refute. These ideas don’t sound right to you immediately so you dismiss them without the thought they require.
            I know this to be true because you don’t know what we’re talking about most of the time…you think you do but, since we won’t spoon-feed you every thing we’ve ever read, you assume it doesn’t exist.
            That is what makes people crazy…not a different p.o.v.

            Do me a personal favor and buy or borrow those Sowell books I linked. They are really good reads…not written like a text or anything. Very interesting stuff that would probably blow you mind if you’d let it in.

            Those are two very basic books and, if you haven’t even read those, you really don’t know what you think you know.

          41. Mike – blah blah blah

            If I was the only guy in the world that you could lay this on you might have a point.

            but you are the one who is in the 1% on this and I’m aligned with most people on it

            You essentially think most people are ignorant and stupid and if someone echos what the predominate view is – you and others then focus on him as an individual

            It won’t work guy. It’s just pure crap that you and others here peddle when you disagree with others.

            It’s dishonest and cowardly.

            Sowell is a bomb throwing partisan zealot who has no credibility at all in my book. He’s a purveyor of propaganda and little else.

            I see why he is your hero and others here but I can assure you most folks who actually read his stuff would not find it particularly enlightening unless they are also partisan zealots.

          42. perhaps you could explain given the logic about good business practices you espoused how this happened:

            http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-25/news/mn-62027_1_civil-rights-advocates

            I never claimed that discrimination doesn’t happen, only that it doesn’t make economic sense to do so as a blanket policy. Neither have I claimed that civil rights laws don’t exist, only that they are infringements on property rights and freedom of association. And I certainly haven’t claimed that people wouldn’t sue under existing law if they believe they have a case.

            Denny’s SHOULD be able to exclude blacks if they choose, but it is their loss and some other restaurant’s gain.

            You and I and millions of others could boycott Denny’s if we don’t agree with their policies, just as blacks boycotted the Montgomery public bus system in 1955. A privately owned bus system would have failed and gone bankrupt.

            and in the 1960′s Ron, it was common for National Chain restaurants and motels in the South to turn away black “business”.. didn’t you know that?

          43. ” Denny’s SHOULD be able to exclude blacks if they choose”

            so you do support the right to discriminate against blacks, correct?

            Now can you identify some elected or other academics or public policy figures who also support discrimination against blacks ?

            how much support is there to repeal the civil rights act if it is a blatant restriction of rights?

          44. First, Larry, If we were to base the validity of our thoughts on whether or not our elected officials held them as well, we would be an even more retarded society than we are now.

            I know you won’t because you could accidentally learn something, but you would do yourself well by reading (black) economist Thomas Sowell’s thoughts on the civil rights laws.

          45. then how did the law get passed in the first place and how come it’s never been repealed?

            Have you asked that about Davis Bacon lately?

          46. re: Civil Rights Act vs Davis Beacon

            connection?

          47. re: Civil Rights Act vs Davis Beacon

            connection?

            You asked someone to consider how the civil rights act came to be and why it has never been repealed.

            I asked if you have ever asked yourself that question about how the Davis-Bacon act came to be and why it has never been repealed. It is clearly intended to discriminate against black workers, and it still exists today.

          48. ” Davis-Bacon act came to be and why it has never been repealed. It is clearly intended to discriminate against black workers, and it still exists today.”

            it was cynically claimed to do that by racists of that era and disagreement from many others. Another typical myopic view of how the world works from folks who defend racism.

          49. No, Larry the KKK and White Brotherhood are private organizations. A comparable private black group would be the Black Panthers.

            The CBC is a group of black *elected officials* who meet on public property and use public infrastructure and services. They do not allow white members. They are openly practicing discrimination based on race, something you claim no elected official favors. They are in direct violation of the civil rights act of 1964.

            Would you be OK with a Congressional White Caucus?

            The Caucuses are not conducting business with the public – they are freely associating which they can do even as govt officials just as you can and do have hundreds of other associations for private or govt groups.

            The existence of the Black Caucus is based on a historical pattern of racism and discrimination – that continues to this day with back door attacks on laws that address racism and discrimination by people too cowardly to openly favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act.

            The Black Caucus continues to monitor and defend against would be racists.

          50. [Davis-Bacon] “it was cynically claimed to do that by racists of that era and disagreement from many others. Another typical myopic view of how the world works from folks who defend racism.

            Wow. You’re really determined to defend a position that’s clearly wrong.

            What do YOU believe the intent of Davis-Bacon was and is?

            It was proposed and supported by racist *elected officials* who argued for its passage BECAUSE if its racial impact on black workers. You can read it for yourself. Who were the “many others” who disagreed? With WHAT did they disagree?

            You can clearly see that the impact of Davis-Bacon was to deny employment to non-union black workers, and you can easily determine that the unions were very white at the time.

            If it had – and has – that negative effect on black employment, why has it not been repealed? It has been suspended several times over the years by various Presidents to facilitate something deemed more important, such as national emergencies, and for political expedience, but it has always been reinstated.

            It is in force today. Ask those 14% of all black workers and the 40% of black teenagers who are unemployed, if they would consider taking jobs working on government projects for less than “prevailing wage”, if they were allowed to do so.

            Do you think they would say “No thanks, we support Davis-Bacon.”?

            The question is, if it IS good law why was it ever suspended, and if it’s NOT good law, why was it ever reinstated?

            Me: “The CBC is a group of black *elected officials* who meet on public property and use public infrastructure and services. They do not allow white members. They are openly practicing discrimination based on race, something you claim no elected official favors. They are in direct violation of the civil rights act of 1964.

            Would you be OK with a Congressional White Caucus?

            You: “The Caucuses are not conducting business with the public – they are freely associating which they can do even as govt officials just as you can and do have hundreds of other associations for private or govt groups.

            “As government officials” they are doing the business of the public that elected them for just that purpose. Their actions as members of the *Congressional* Black Caucus is not outside of that responsibility. We aren’t talking about a Black Congressperson’s Bowling League. The purpose of the caucus is to address legislation that affects black people.

            The Black Caucus continues to monitor and defend against would be racists.

            The CBC *IS* a racist organization, that doesn’t allow white members. If their purpose was to promote justice and equality, why wouldn’t they welcome like minded white members?

            And again, the question you didn’t answer: Would you be OK with a White Congressional Caucus”? Would you consider it a racist organization if it didn’t allow black members?

          51. re: Davis Beacon.. racist law and still around even after the civil rights act?

            ha ha ha

            re: black caucus – white caucus – it depends on your mission now doesn’t it?

            if you mission is to rebut perceived racism…

            vs a mission to re-institute racism.

          52. OK, Larry

            Are you saying that a whites-only group who’s mission is to stomp out racist action against blacks would be OK?

            Clearly, their first act would have to be to disband…How about a white-only group to end reverse racism? That’s just like the CBC…completely racist.

          53. OK, Larry

            no Moron?

            Are you saying that a whites-only group who’s mission is to stomp out racist action against blacks would be OK?

            I think if they are defending the interests of a race that has been the victim of systemic racism in the past… I see nothing wrong with that mission.

            Clearly, their first act would have to be to disband…How about a white-only group to end reverse racism? That’s just like the CBC…completely racist.

            Since Whites have a significant history of bad treatment of blacks, one would wonder what their mission really was … As far as I know they are free to form such a group … but probably are smarter than the average dufus…. usually groups like that tend to harbor closet racists…. which none of their fellow members would want to get tarred with that “association”.

            Check with Trent Lott or George Allen or Jesse Helms on that.

          54. If you think something is wrong but there are those who would come after you for stepping up – then you wait to time your moves. That one percent is smart enough to have a pragmatic sense of what can change, how much can change and when.,

            Bullshit! Is that what Dr. M. L. King did? Did he wait to time his moves because he thought someone might come after him, or did he stand up and say “This is wrong!”, regardless of the consequences?

          55. re: bullshit

            it ain’t a perfect world…

            :-)

        4. morganovich

          “is it okay for someone in business to say ” we do not serve your “kind” here” if they are using public infrastructure and services?”

          and just what “public services” are you referring to?

          so, if i use city water, i have to let anyone into my house?

          if the bohemian club in san francico uses city trash services, they must admit women?

          that seems absurd, especially as they (and i) and paying for those services either through a bill or taxes.

          what next, victoria’s secret must also sell men’s clothes because they use city power?

          now, if say a university wants to be all women, i think that it should be free to do so, but if the state and federal governments do not wish to fund it as a result, i think that’s fine too.

          i really fail to see the point you are driving at here.

    2. LarryG,

      Would Friedman and company also argue against the wisdom of the Military Occupational Specialty code (MOS code) that tends to focus on qualifications rather than arbitrary opinions by individuals?

      Friedman would probably argue that the military can organize itself however it wants, just as any other organization can organize itself the way it wants.

      Additionally, military pay is based almost exclusively on rank and time in the military, without regard to MOS. In other words an E6 computer network specialist (MOS 31F) with 9 years in the Army gets paid exactly the same as an E6 Boatswain’s Mate with 9 years in the Navy.

      There are other things that affect pay, such as being married, or whether you’re in an air squadron or on a submarine, but none of those have anything to do with an MOS or rating.

      So not only do you not understand Friedman’s point, you don’t understand the example you provide.

      1. – there WAS discrimination

      2. – govt DID do something about it although they did not wipe it out by any means.

      Yes, the government perpetrated that discrimination. In your ignorance you seem to forget that Jim Crow was a set of laws. These laws were enacted by a majority to oppress the minority who had no problem paying blacks their market worth in the job market.

      Since competitors have no choice but to compete or be driven out of the market place, race based and gender based discrimination did NOT occur in workplaces. Rather this discrimination was imposed, top down, by government politicians and bureaucrats.

      1. re: ” Yes, the government perpetrated that discrimination. In your ignorance you seem to forget that Jim Crow was a set of laws. These laws were enacted by a majority to oppress the minority who had no problem paying blacks their market worth in the job market.

        Since competitors have no choice but to compete or be driven out of the market place, race based and gender based discrimination did NOT occur in workplaces. Rather this discrimination was imposed, top down, by government politicians and bureaucrats.”

        Ken – I recall you are in your 30’s . You obviously are not from the South and do not remember the 1960’s and prior.

        the laws you refer to were the tip of the iceberg in terms of discrimination.

        Can you show me the law – for instance that said blacks could only drink from water fountains labeled “colored”.

        Ken – you are really ignorant boy.

        1. Ken – I recall you are in your 30′s . You obviously are not from the South and do not remember the 1960’s and prior.

          Yes. I’m 38. Does that mean I can’t speak on anything that happened prior to 1974? I’m also white, so can I not comment on blacks, since “it’s a black thing”? I also wasn’t alive during the Civil War, as no one was, does that mean no one can possibly be informed and talk intelligently about the Civil War?

          This is one of the weakest arguments you’ve ever put forth and you’ve put forth a LOT of weak ones over your pathetic tenure as a Carpe Diem commenter.

          Can you show me the law – for instance that said blacks could only drink from water fountains labeled “colored”.

          There were literallydozens of laws requiring segregation of nearly everything, written so broadly as to include water fountains.

          1. re: laws vs custom.

            both guys.

            the laws often followed custom but both were pervasive and rampant and if you don’t know that then you don’t know history.

            this is where many of those anti-discrimination laws came from originally and the South did not quietly acquiesce to the new laws. it continued for decades with shadow, de-facto discrimination.

            ya’ll either are ignorant of all of this or you choose to ignore it but this is where many of the anti-discrimination laws first came from.

            Once the issue with blacks was being addressed, women started asking the same questions when it came to jobs.

            By having folks now days attacking these laws as if there is no history behind them is dishonest.

            People who choose to believe these narratives without taking a little time to go back and see the history are a bit too biased to really want to know.

            they prefer to believe that these laws were never needed – as indeed has been expressed here.

            If you lived in the South during the 1960’s then you’d have to be blind, deaf and dumb to have not noticed the legal, institutional and informal discrimination that was rampant.

            some here seem to think the laws required it.

            yes.. but there were many other kinds of discrimination that no law required and more than a few of the laws merely made legal what was already a practice.

            come on guys.. are you that much in denial about history? or are you so ideological in your beliefs that you have to deny history?

        2. There were literally dozens (link) of laws requiring segregation of nearly everything, written so broadly as to include water fountains.

          That’s at least twice you’ve been given that link to Wikipedia. Won’t you at least glance at it briefly?

  3. Don Boudreaux: Not that every employer always gets it right, but every employer does have strong incentives to get it right. If an employer underpays a woman, some other firm can increase its profits by hiring her away at higher pay.

    Which is why there has never been sexual discrimination in the workplace.

    1. META: Edit or preview would be nice.

      1. That is a point on which we agree 100%.

    2. re: ” Which is why there has never been sexual discrimination in the workplace.”

      which we know there was both gender-based and race-based and the complaint seems to be the response to it is wrong – but I notice there are no suggested better alternatives either.

      1. morganovich

        zach-

        that’s a straw man.

        no one claimed that any system was perfect, only that a free market will outperform top down equal pay laws and has better incentives and information from which to arrive at the solution.

        this is a common method by which those favoring state intervention try to defend it. they point to some less than perfect outcome in a market and then say “ha, see, markets are not perfect” a claim that no one sane has ever made and then duck the issue of how much worse intervention makes them and all the terrible outcomes from various interventionist polices.

        it’s just a rhetorical trick, not an actual argument.

        1. morganovich: that’s a straw man

          No. Boudreaux is claiming that the markets have a strong tendency to equalize pay. That is not always the case. Discrimination can persist in free markets. It has to do with the underlying beliefs of people. If they don’t think women can be, for instance, doctors, then they will compare a woman doctor to a dog that walks on two legs. It’s not that she does it well, but that she can do it at all. In other words, people will fit the facts to suit their underlying beliefs.

          Ending discrimination often requires changing the viewpoints of people. Meanwhile, workers will reasonably demand equal pay for equal work, which is part of how attitudes are changed.

          1. Jon Murphy

            Zach,

            What evidence do you have that suggests discrimination in the workplace is such a problem as to require government intervention?

          2. re: current evidence of discrimination

            vs.. clear evidence in years past that resulted in laws…

            right?

            it seems that the argument is that we no longer have discrimination and/or even if we do – it’s a value proposition and that they may be good, valid reasons for discrimination.

            in years past, discrimination was practiced – not for good reasons other than the fact that white folks did not want black folks working in the same jobs or providing goods or services to them – and vice versa.

            There used to be a book for black folks that showed them where the black motels were when they traveled because there was no way they could stay in “white” motels.

            It’s a bit disingenuous IMHO to imply that such anti-discrimination laws are not needed now days while forgetting why those laws came into existence to start with.

            It might be time to re-think some of the laws – but what you’re hearing instead is that they are not needed and the implication that they never were without ever really acknowledging that there was a time when they were needed.

          3. Jon Murphy

            Actually, Larry, I am not convinced there was rampant discrimination in the past. It is easy to look at individual incidents and say “here, look! This is why we need these laws!” But I just don’t see it in the numbers. When adjusting for education, skills, and the such, pay is remarkably equal. What I do see is education inequality. In my opinion, any difference in wages is caused by education inequality, rather than discrimination. In my opinion, we should me moving towards fixing our education system rather than a band-aid of wage laws.

          4. @ LarryG

            Let me see if I understand your argument.

            In years past, government enacted discrimination laws and enforced them at gunpoint because the eeeevil free market wasn’t discriminating enough. Then, government repealed its enforced-at-gunpoint-mandatory-discrimination laws because the eeeevil free market was doing too much discriminating. All of this is the fault of eeeevil free markets.

            Is this what you’re arguing?

          5. I’m pointing out this:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Women.27s_rights

            and this kind of thing:

            ” A federal court overruled an Ohio state law that barred women from obtaining jobs which required the ability to lift 25 pounds and required women to take lunch breaks when men were not required to”

            or in the South where Woolworths had no bathrooms for “colored”, etc and even at the courthouse – the “colored” had to use separate water fountains.

            capiche?

          6. @ Jon Murphy.

            You’re right. There wasn’t rampant discrimination. At least not rampant enough for racists. That’s why they enacted forced-at-gunpoint mandatory discrimination laws. There were too many white merchants who realized that “colored” money spent the same as any other.

          7. re: current evidence of discrimination

            vs.. clear evidence in years past that resulted in from laws…

            right?

            There. That’s better.

          8. The black racist, Jesse Jackson likes to spit in whitey’s food. I am sure that there are white racists who do the same thing. I would prefer that black and white racists be free to tell people they don’t like that, “your kind ain’t welcome here”.

          9. note the signs over the doors:

            Your point might have more impact if you chose an actual historical image rather than one celebrating the grand opening of an historical monument.

            From approximately 1890 to the 1960s Virginia law *required* separate facilities.

            “The conductors or managers on all such railroads shall have power, and are hereby required, to assign to each white or colored passenger his or her respective car, coach or compartment. If the passenger fails to disclose his race, the conductor and managers, acting in good faith, shall be the sole judges of his race.”

          10. the picture is from a grand opening of the renovation but there was a kerfuffle about whether the renovated station should show the two separate waiting rooms.

            there were laws in the south to require separation but there were also other forms of discrimination not required by law which I find curious in your argument.

            the laws followed custom – formalized custom.

            there was rampant discrimination both legal and informal and it often resulted in separate facilities which were paid for with taxes and with profits.

            there is no denying this unless one does not remember and does not read history.

          11. You are pointing out laws that prohibited merchants from freely engaging in commerce and implying that these laws were the result of rampant discrimination. I am asserting that those laws were enacted because too many merchants valued money more than they valued racism.

            You are also intentionally missing Friedman’s point. If there is voluntary racial or gender discrimination, the market will punish that arbitrary discrimination. If I can hire Tom Sowell and Methinks at 80% of what I’d have to pay you or Yasafi Balella, guess which two white boys are going to be unemployed?

            When Methinks and Sowell come up to me and point out that their productivity is twice what I was getting out of G and Balella, and that if their compensation doesn’t start reflecting their value then I am soon going to lose their services, guess who is going to get a raise?

          12. Z: “Discrimination can persist in free markets. It has to do with the underlying beliefs of people.

            Absolutely.

            Z: “Boudreaux is claiming that the markets have a strong tendency to equalize pay.

            He’s right. Pay inequality due to prejudice means some workers are underpaid, based on their value, which will allow less prejudiced employers to hire them away at a higher wage. The *tendency* is for pay to approximate value to employers. Indulging one’s biases in employment carries a price.

            That is not always the case.

            No, it’s not always the case.

            In other words, people will fit the facts to suit their underlying beliefs.

            Yes, they will.

          13. morganovich

            zach-

            and he is right. markets do equalize equal pay for equal work. at issue is who gets to decide what equal work is. this is the part you guys keep missing.

            if i fear a woman will leave to have kids vs a man who will stay, even if their output today is equal, their long term work is not. to pretend this is not so is simply to ignore facts.

            if pretty bartenders attract more patrons than fat ones or women bartenders more than men, those are also facts and are a part of determining just what “equal work” is.

            implicit in any argument for equal pay laws is that some distant bureaucrat is both better at making such determinations than the owner of a business (an absurd notion) and further that such a bureaucrat is ENTITLED to make such decisions, itself a violation of notions of free association and personal liberty.

            you seem to take the view that government has the right to force people to adopt opinions. how is such a view in any way compatible with a free society, self determination, and the rights of the individual?

        2. Jon

          Actually, Larry, I am not convinced there was rampant discrimination in the past. It is easy to look at individual incidents and say “here, look! This is why we need these laws!” But I just don’t see it in the numbers.

          This is probably a first, but on this narrow issue I’m going to agree with Larry and disagree with you. You may want to mark this date on your calendar, as it may be a once in a lifetime event.

          In the remote past, before your time, and perhaps before the time of your parents, there were actual laws *requiring* discrimination by race, including seperate bathrooms, drinking fountains, and prohibition of interracial marriage among many others.

          That this was unjust is beyond question, I believe, but the solution has become not only repeal of those unjust laws but equally senseless requirements that have had the effect of causing more harm than good, and have given rise to resentment and polarization that is red meat for opportunists like Sharpton and Jackson.

          1. re: ” “Actually, Larry, I am not convinced there was rampant discrimination in the past. It is easy to look at individual incidents and say “here, look! This is why we need these laws!” But I just don’t see it in the numbers. ”

            the only thing I can say to this is that you don’t know history.

          2. the only thing I can say to this is that you don’t know history.

            The only thing I can say is that you don’t read well.

            You might try reading the entire comment you are responding to instead of just the quote from Jon. If you’re still confused ask someone at your location to explain it to you.

          3. Jon Murphy

            Larry,

            Perhaps I was unclear. There certainly was/is legal discrimination (Jim Crow, for example). But I am not talking about discrimination by law. What this post is about is wage discrimination, and this is what my point.

          4. Jon Murphy

            Although I do agree with the argument put forth by Friedman et al., I just also think that wage laws address an imaginary symptom, rather than a cause. It seems that the largest reason for wage differentials is not discrimination, but rather education. One of the problems in America is women and minorities are routinely under-served in elementary and secondary education (check out graduation rates). Our system of education is broken, and until we fix it (I say though a voucher system, but that’s a different story), this “wage discrepancy” is going nowhere.

  4. @Morg – I appreciate your position guy but I do not believe “preference” is equivalent to “discrimination”.

    Ron made the distinction between public and private.

    but the law says if you serve the public – you cannot discriminate by race.

    You CAN have a preference that says “no shoes, no shirt, no service”

    but you CANNOT say “we do not serve colored or Muslims”

    but back to the beginning of the thread on whether woman are currently discriminated again.

    There was a time when Woman were denied jobs if it required picking up more than 25 pounds.

    That was the same time period when blacks were also prevented from working in various occupations also if it involved interactions with whites.

    the laws we have today have their roots in the laws that were written back then to address the discrimination that was ongoing.

    they may have outlived some of their usefulness now or not – an arguable point but to ignore why those laws first came about and pretend that discrimination never existed to start with is misrepresenting the core purpose of the laws at their inception.

    I notice that Rand Paul first went one way then backtracked on the public accommodation question.

    Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

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

    this law is almost 50 years old and the law was needed at the time it was written.

    1. @Morg – I appreciate your position guy but I do not believe “preference” is equivalent to “discrimination”.

      Discrimination: ” Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.”

      Walter Williams claims that he discriminated against racial groups when he was considering a wife. He denied opportunities to white, Asian, and Latin women as well as men, to choose only from among black women. What a racist and homophobe, eh?

      Ron made the distinction between public and private.

      but the law says if you serve the public – you cannot discriminate by race.

      Then the law is wrong.

      You CAN have a preference that says “no shoes, no shirt, no service”

      but you CANNOT say “we do not serve colored or Muslims”

      Why should colored or Muslims have any more right to my service than shirtless people? Remember, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”.

      I just don’t like your looks, or I don’t think you will pay me when you’re done eating, so out you go.

      I may not want to risk saying “I don’t serve your kind here”, but those Eastside Crips I hire to sit in the corner glaring at whites who come in sure have the desired effect as does the large mural of Eldridge Cleaver on the wall.

    2. the laws we have today have their roots in the laws that were written back then to address the discrimination that was ongoing.

      Some discriminatory laws are still on the books. You’re aware, of course, that minimum wage laws were first introduced to keep black workers from taking jobs for lower pay than their white counterparts. The cost of discrimination was thereby eliminated.

      1. ” You’re aware, of course, that minimum wage laws were first introduced to keep black workers from taking jobs for lower pay than their white counterparts. The cost of discrimination was thereby eliminated.”

        really? got some links?

        1. really? got some links?

          Why yes, I do. But first, you can look up some data yourself, and find that the last year that the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment was 1930. Coincidentally the last year without a federal minimum wage.

          You have claimed, correctly, that discrimination was pervasive in earlier times, so it’s a real mystery why you would not find it plausible that a federal law prohibiting black workers from working for a lower wage than white workers would be aimed at protecting the jobs of white workers. What better way than to remove the penalty for racial discrimination in hiring?

          Maybe Walter Williams can explain it to you better than I can.

          Of course there’s also the Davis Bacon act also of 1931 which which required all public works projects that included federal funding to pay “prevailing wages”. (read – union scale), which effectively prevented non-union blacks (there were no black union workers) from working on government projects.

          Congressional representative Clayton Allgood of Alabama said that he supported Davis-Bacon because “Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.

          1. Actually Ron, for future reference, when I say “link”, I mean a credible, factual one instead of some Libertarian wannabie explaining his theory.

          2. Actually Ron, for future reference, when I say “link”, I mean a credible, factual one instead of some Libertarian wannabie explaining his theory“…

            ROFLMAO!

            Good one wikipedia boy!

          3. JuanDoze – if it will assuage your ignorance any better, from now on I can provide the reference that Wikipedia does when I cite Wikipedia… and then what will you do?

            most likely, you’ll continue to traffic in your usual biased and off-the-wall crappola you seem to prefer to truth.

          4. larry greiterating the stupidity says: “if it will assuage your ignorance any better, from now on I can provide the reference that Wikipedia does when I cite Wikipedia… and then what will you do?“…

            What makes you think that reference is any better than the original entry?

            Face it, you’re either to lazy or to stupid to do your own homework…

          5. Actually Ron, for future reference, when I say “link”, I mean a credible, factual one instead of some Libertarian wannabie explaining his theory.

            Well that’s the problem, isn’t it. As all value is relative – as you are well aware – we differ in our assessment of Dr. Williams value as a source of valuable insight.

            As I expected, you provided an ad hominem attack on the person rather than actually refuting the contents of his message. That seems to be your automatic response to anything you don’t like or with which you disagree, as it doesn’t fit your view that government is good for you.

            What about the Davis Bacon act? I gave you a Wikipedia source. Will you also question that? Did you read the snippet from Clayton Allgood explaining why he supported the measure?

            Is it not clear that the intent of Davis Bacon was to discriminate against black workers? Why would you doubt that’s also the intent of minimum wage, as it had that effect, and still has that effect today, especially for the 40% of black teens who are unemployed?

            Keep in mind that many New Deal measures, including those two, were intended to decrease unemployment among white workers, not black workers.

            Why is it difficult for you to acknowledge that those in government can actually intend to cause harm?

            It’s not clear you understand what you think you know about this subject as you reject economics as a valid study of human behavior, and you reject any suggestion that government policy can be misguided at best and intentionally harmful at worst, while asserting, correctly, that forced segregation and discrimination existed in the past.

            Over time, people’s beliefs about what is acceptable treatment of others have changed. Along with those changes come attempts to codify behavior into law, which almost always has unintended consequences.

            It isn’t the law that has changed attitudes, it is changing attitudes that have changed the law.

  5. Jon Murphy: What evidence do you have that suggests discrimination in the workplace is such a problem as to require government intervention?

    The claim was made that markets have a strong tendency against racial and gender discrimination. However, people have historical prejudices which affect how they judge value. Markets are not omnipotent, and less than optimal conditions can persist over generations. That’s why people often turn to political solutions.

    Zachriel: Discrimination can persist in free markets. It has to do with the underlying beliefs of people.

    Ron H: Absolutely.

    And when racism is widespread, it results in persistent market distortions.

    Ron H: In the remote past, before your time, and perhaps before the time of your parents, there were actual laws *requiring* discrimination by race, including seperate bathrooms, drinking fountains, and prohibition of interracial marriage among many others.

    Within living memory these laws had widespread support.

    Jon Murphy: But I am not talking about discrimination by law. What this post is about is wage discrimination, and this is what my point.

    People have prejudices. When widespread and persistent, they distort markets and create political instability.

    Jon Murphy: I just also think that wage laws address an imaginary symptom, rather than a cause. It seems that the largest reason for wage differentials is not discrimination, but rather education.

    That’s a reasonable point, and perhaps with some validity.

    1. re: the “history” of discrimination to include wages and why the law came into being in the first place.

      the original laws against wage discrimination did not come about because of “education” or “preferences” or even laws that originally required discrimination.

      the original laws came about because discrimination was pervasive and rampant by custom and by law and the discrimination was race-based (and to a certain extent gender-based) and not “education”-based.

      Times have changed – for the better – in no small part because of laws that restricted race-based discrimination.

      If you now take a snapshot of the current wage environment with respect to the long-standing law, it may appear to be overkill but it was not overkill in the historical environment it came to be a law in.

      I’m not clear on where Friedman is coming from – but I suspect as Ron as others have said is that they essentially believe it is the right of people to discriminate against others for any number of reasons – to include race and when the government intervenes – on either side, it distorts markets.

      so what they are arguing in essence in my mind is that if many employers want to discriminate on wages based on race or gender – it’s their right even if their arguments are simply flimsy excuses for real reasons that ARE race and gender-based.

      And truth be known – the distorted market argument is correct but this also points out the futility of arguing that the market should operate in pure unfettered economic way.

      there are no truly free markets in most things because we, as a society, make choices about things like discrimination or letting people die in the streets because they cannot afford medical care.

      we willingly choose to distort the markets with these laws and policies.

      and people like Friedman continue to argue that distorted markets are wrong.

      my biggest complaint is that in their arguments they ignore powerful societal forces that are present and responsible for the distortions and even if you thoroughly debate the issue honestly, society will not back off and allow discrimination on race or gender – at least in the US.

      Those are realities – not theories. There are still multiple generations of people who not only vote but they remember their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents being discriminated against and they won’t allow a return to those “markets”.

    2. Z: “Within living memory these laws had widespread support.

      Yes, but not within Jon’s living memory.

      Z: “And when racism is widespread, it results in persistent market distortions.

      Indeed. Unless that racism is institutionalized, It creates opportunities for those who understand the cost of turning away perfectly spendable money, or valuable employee skills at a favorable wage. It allows non-discriminators to have an “unfair” advantage over their competitors.

      1. Ron H: Yes, but not within Jon’s living memory.

        Have no idea, but within the memory of people with whom he should be acquainted.

        Ron H: It allows non-discriminators to have an “unfair” advantage over their competitors.

        Which is why discrimination never existed …

        People organize into political and social groups. If the majority, wealthier groups organize themselves to enforce segregation, then people who buck the trend will be at a competitive disadvantage. You get kicked out of the club.

        It can take generations for the advantages of greater equality to be felt. Other events can intervene, destroying gains. People won’t always wait, insisting upon their political and economic equality, organizing to effect change.

        1. Ron H: “It allows non-discriminators to have an “unfair” advantage over their competitors.

          Z: “Which is why discrimination never existed …

          We have not claimed that.

          People organize into political and social groups. If the majority, wealthier groups organize themselves to enforce segregation, then people who buck the trend will be at a competitive disadvantage. You get kicked out of the club.”

          To enforce segregation, as was done during the Jim Crow era required the use of government force through laws and regulations. We are ALWAYS in favor of FEWER regulations and MORE individual personal choice.

          Few social pressures are strong enough to consistently overcome interest in the bottom line unless government guns are drawn to enforce them.

          It can take generations for the advantages of greater equality to be felt. Other events can intervene, destroying gains. People won’t always wait, insisting upon their political and economic equality, organizing to effect change.

          Political and economic equality are desirable goals with which most people agree. Infringement of personal property rights and the right to freedom of association as means to those ends are not, just as they were not during Jim Crow.

  6. Ron H: Why should colored or Muslims have any more right to my service than shirtless people? Remember, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”.

    Bigotry has consequences. You’ll either have to force people to stay down, or they will rise up. Whether you understand it or not, people consider it their right to shop where they want, and work where they want, and have a say in their government. To advocate a society where people could put up “Whites Only” sign when hiring suggests that you have a very simplistic view of the world.

    1. ” To advocate a society where people could put up “Whites Only” sign when hiring suggests that you have a very simplistic view of the world.”

      but that’s exactly what Friedman and like-minded argue is necessary for a best-functioning market, right?

      but they based their arguments on a current snapshot and ignore why the law came about in the first place.

      they essentially argue that the law may have good societal intentions but it’s a bad law for the “market”.

      It’s this kind of Libertarian purist rigidity that renders them an ineffective electoral force in this country.

    2. Ron H: “Why should colored or Muslims have any more right to my service than shirtless people? Remember, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”.

      Z: “Bigotry has consequences. You’ll either have to force people to stay down, or they will rise up.

      We are not “forcing people to stay down” when we deny them access to our private property.

      We have yet to hear any complaints from the N.A.A.S.P.
      (National Association for the Advancement of Shirtless People)

      Z: “ Whether you understand it or not, people consider it their right to shop where they want, and work where they want, and have a say in their government.

      What people also consider and understand, whether you do or not, is that others also have rights, including property rights, which trump the vague notion that people can go anywhere they please without permission.

      Z: “To advocate a society where people could put up “Whites Only” sign when hiring suggests that you have a very simplistic view of the world

      What we advocate is a society in which property rights are respected.

      The whole point of this post and the discussion that follows is that there is an economic cost to indulging one’s prejudices. If someone puts up a “whites only” sign that isn’t mandated by law, they are narrowing their choices of employees and customers, and will suffer financially in competition with others who will hire or serve those who are not whites.

      To argue “public accommodation” is to argue that a mosque, for example, which is private property but accommodates the public, should be forced to allow access to non-muslims. Is that consistent in your view??

      It isn’t possible to legislate people’s thoughts or attitudes, nor is it possible to outlaw bigotry. However, the market punishes those who practice discrimination and favors those who don’t.

    3. but that’s exactly what Friedman and like-minded argue is necessary for a best-functioning market, right?

      No, Larry, Friedman and like-minded have been trying very hard to point out to you that markets impose a financial cost on those who discriminate, unless everyone is forced by law to do it.

      but they based their arguments on a current snapshot and ignore why the law came about in the first place.

      No, Larry, that’s not even part of the discussion except from you.

      1. re: ”
        No, Larry, that’s not even part of the discussion except from you”

        Really?

        What laws are we talkin about here:

        “In the video above, Milton Friedman explains why “equal pay for equal work” laws”

        so what laws is he complaining about? I mean the man would not be blathering about laws in general would he?

        1. Me: “No, Larry, that’s not even part of the discussion except from you

          You: “Really?

          What laws are we talkin about here:

          “but they based their arguments on a current snapshot and ignore why the law came about in the first place.“”

          No, Larry, *that* – “a current snapshot and ignore why the law came about in the first place” – is not even part of the discussion except from you”

          1. re: ” is not even part of the discussion except from you”

            Friedman did not mention laws?

        2. so what laws is he complaining about? I mean the man would not be blathering about laws in general would he?”

          Milton Friedman is pointing out that “equal pay for equal work” laws, instead of correcting a supposed unfair difference in pay between men and women for the same work, actually has the effect of eliminating the cost of discrimination if an employer actually favors men over women workers.

          1. ” “equal pay for equal work laws”

            what laws?

            is he talking about recently-passed laws or laws that are almost 50 years old?

            He did write about these laws himself 50 years ago you know and he specifically called black people “Negroes”.

            Do you know back in 1962 what white folks called them Negroes vs which white folks called them black folks or African Americans?

            What would you think about a white guy calling a black guy a Negro?

      2. ” markets impose a financial cost on those who discriminate”

        and those who are the target of systemic discrimination do not suffer financial costs?

  7. Ron H: Walter Williams claims that he discriminated against racial groups when he was considering a wife.

    Rather quaint. Most people nowadays fall in love.

    1. How many women have you fallen in love with who you weren’t attracted to?

    2. Rather quaint. Most people nowadays fall in love.

      Although he didn’t elaborate, perhaps Dr. Williams entertained that possibility after first allowing his biases to reject those with whom he didn’t wish to fall in love. He was married to the same woman for 47 years, so his method of selecting a mate seems to have worked very well for him.

  8. One argument that I don’t believe I have ever heard on this topic:

    Am I the only male who has ever found out that another male doing the same job at the same company made more money? I’ve also found out that I made more money than others of the same job description. Male over male preference?

    I’ve been on the hiring end of this too and, based on budgets, you can hire 2 people for the same job, just a couple months apart, with very different paychecks. I suppose that declining budgets will now bring on the actual discrimination of eliminating female candidates who can take legal action for normal business.

  9. Ron H: We are not “forcing people to stay down” when we deny them access to our private property.

    When a powerful group acts en mass, a common enough event, then yes, it is forcing people to stay down.

    Ron H: The whole point of this post and the discussion that follows is that there is an economic cost to indulging one’s prejudices.

    There may be an economic cost, but there may also be an even greater economic cost in bucking the powerful.

    1. When a powerful group acts en mass, a common enough event, then yes, it is forcing people to stay down.

      Especially when it’s the law, eh?

      This is interesting. You seem to favor majority rule in most circumstances such as paying taxes or union dues, or forcing those who disagree to do things they don’t wish to do, but in the case of a group acting en mass to deny others access to private property, you see a problem, and it’s no longer “the worst system except for all the rest”. What’s up with that?

      1. Interesting. After explaining our position to you directly many, many times, you still unintentionally misrepresent it.

        Modern democracies are based on power distributed at all levels of society, with the ballot being only one aspect of the process.

        1. Z: “Interesting. After explaining our position to you directly many, many times, you still unintentionally misrepresent it.

          Z: “When a powerful group acts en mass en masse, a common enough event, then yes, it is forcing people to *stay down*. ”

          *powerful groups also force people to – *

          1. pay taxes
          2. join the union
          3. convert or be killed
          4. buy healthcare coverage
          5. wear blue dresses
          6. forgo happy meal toys
          7. buy only low flow toilets
          8. take off their shoes in order to board an airplane
          9. pay for other people’s retirement benefits
          10. allow anyone on their private property

          Which, in your opinion, are legitimate and which are not? And, why is the use of force justified in any case?

          Your previous comments indicate that you believe there is some sort of “social contract” that people are born into and that they have no choice but to obey the dictates of the “powerful group acting en masse”.

          Are there, or should there be, exceptions for things of which you don’t approve?

          Forced segregation was as much the “will of the majority” as forced “public accommodation” is now.

          1. Ron H: pay taxes

            Most people realize the necessity of government, and that government of the people is preferable to the other kind. Only by ignoring the complexity of human society have you been able to convince yourself otherwise.

        2. Z:

          That wasn’t exactly a response to our question. We asked if you thought all uses of force when a “powerful group acts en masse” are legitimate. You instead responded by quoting the least controversial example we had provided, and this:

          Most people realize the necessity of government, and that government of the people is preferable to the other kind. Only by ignoring the complexity of human society have you been able to convince yourself otherwise.

          Not only do we not ignore the complexity of human society, we believe it is far too complex to be governed by a small group of people – no matter how smart, capable, and well intentioned they may be – that has been selected by a “powerful group acting en masse”.

          In the past you have mentioned various institutions that share in the “power distributed at all levels of society, and we approve of all those in which membership is voluntary. and disapprove of those few in which membership is forced.

          We believe your position to be that a group of enlightened and oh so benevolent elites, who know what is best, should govern the masses, as the masses are too stupid to know what is in their own best interest. And this, while pretending to give the masses choices through the ballot. There is no such thing as “government of the people” on a large scale. That’s a fairy tale we learn as children. Many grownups know better.

          We would prefer a voluntary society in which people join together voluntarily for mutual benefit and pay willingly for that benefit rather than being forced to pay for things they don’t want, because someone else knows what’s best. There are many such institutions now, and there were many more in the past before government forced them aside.

          We would prefer market competition for government services instead of the current inefficient monopolies that exist. Incentives matter. A good place to start would be to allow competition for delivery of 1st class mail.

          It’s interesting that even paying taxes isn’t something people do willingly, but only under threat of force. Many profess to believe in the necessity of taxation, as you do, but very few pay them willingly, instead complaining about the taxes they must pay for things they don’t want, and working very hard to pay as little as possible. In fact, millions of people are employed just to reduce that tax burden. Apparently many believe in taxes – but for other people.

  10. Brotio: How many women have you fallen in love with who you weren’t attracted to?

    That’s the point, of course. Love is not something people decide, but something that happens (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, c. 1593).

    Ron H: Although he didn’t elaborate, perhaps Dr. Williams entertained that possibility after first allowing his biases to reject those with whom he didn’t wish to fall in love.

    Sure. As we said, quaint. Perhaps he chooses his friends the same way.

    “Deny thy father and refuse thy name, or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, and I’ll no longer be a Capulet.”

    1. Z: “Sure. As we said, quaint. Perhaps he chooses his friends the same way.

      We have no idea, but it would certainly be his right to do so.

      1. Sure.

    2. If you’re not attracted to white women, what are the odds you’ll fall in love with one?

      1. That’s not quite what he said, though. Williams might consider to marry someone of his own race, but fall in love with someone of another.

        It’s not as if Richard and Mildred Loving meant to fall in love, but having fallen in love, they fought to remain together. Williams suggested he would have spurned his passion and married through “consideration”. Quaint, as we said.
        http://lovingfilm.com/

        1. You are missing Williams’ attempt at humor. He is stating, in a humorous way, that he doesn’t find white (or Asian) women desirous. Therefore he “discriminates” against non-blacks when it comes to desire. This discrimination is not conscious, he simply finds black women more desirous.

          Actually, maybe I’m over thinking Williams’s point. He may have been making an even simpler point: when he chose his mate for life, he discriminated against every other woman in the world when he fell in love with Mrs Williams.

        2. Geez! Dr. Williams point is simply that people discriminate constantly. Here’s the article.

          And here’s the quote:

          “Sometimes students will argue that certain forms of discrimination are OK but it’s racial discrimination that’s truly offensive. That’s when I confess my own history of racial discrimination. In the late 1950s, whilst selecting a lifelong mate, even though white, Mexican, Indian, Chinese and Japanese women might have been just as qualified as a mate, I gave them no chance whatsoever. It appears that most Americans act identically by racially discriminating in setting up marriage contracts. According to the 1992 Census Bureau, only 2.2 percent of Americans are married to people other than their own race or ethnicity.”

          In other words not all discrimination, including racial discrimination, is bad.

          1. Ron H: In other words not all discrimination, including racial discrimination, is bad.

            Much of that sort of racial discrimination is vestigial to history. One indication is that young people are marrying across race at twice the rate of previous generations. Williams got married in the 1950s, so he was a product of his time. Whether you think choosing your relationships because of race is right or wrong, it’s not something the government regulates.

          2. Z: “One indication is that young people are marrying across race at twice the rate of previous generations. Williams got married in the 1950s, so he was a product of his time.

            We agree. We note that he has come by some remarkably enlightened views, considering that background.

            Whether you think choosing your relationships because of race is right or wrong, it’s not something the government regulates.

            …any more.

            We think choosing a relationship should be no business of government at any level. We believe in the right of free association, remember?

            We are ALWAYS in favor of less government regulation and MORE individual personal choice.

  11. Brotio: He may have been making an even simpler point: when he chose his mate for life, he discriminated against every other woman in the world when he fell in love with Mrs Williams.

    That’s fine.

  12. Ron H: That wasn’t exactly a response to our question. We asked if you thought all uses of force when a “powerful group acts en masse” are legitimate.

    Not at all, as we have pointed out many times, to you, directly.

    Ron H: … we believe it is far too complex to be governed by a small group of people – no matter how smart, capable, and well intentioned they may be – that has been selected by a “powerful group acting en masse”.

    That’s right, as we have pointed out many times, to you, directly. Nevertheless, government will occur whether you like it or not. Then it’s a question of who will control it, and the relationship between government and other social institutions and the individual.

    Ron H: In the past you have mentioned various institutions that share in the “power distributed at all levels of society, and we approve of all those in which membership is voluntary. and disapprove of those few in which membership is forced.

    Yes, we understand your position. Democracy is tyranny.

    Ron H: We believe your position to be that a group of enlightened and oh so benevolent elites, who know what is best, should govern the masses, as the masses are too stupid to know what is in their own best interest.

    Not at all, as we have pointed out many times, to you, directly. In a modern democracy, power and decision-making is distributed.

    Ron H: We would prefer a voluntary society in which people join together voluntarily for mutual benefit and pay willingly for that benefit rather than being forced to pay for things they don’t want, because someone else knows what’s best.

    And little girls like unicorns.

    Ron H: It’s interesting that even paying taxes isn’t something people do willingly, but only under threat of force.

    Yes. Governments compel taxes.

    Ron H: We are ALWAYS in favor of less government regulation and MORE individual personal choice.

    Which is why your position is simplistic. It has a single answer to every question.

    1. Ron H: … we believe it is far too complex to be governed by a small group of people – no matter how smart, capable, and well intentioned they may be – that has been selected by a “powerful group acting en masse“”.

      Z: “That’s right, as we have pointed out many times, to you, directly. Nevertheless, government will occur whether you like it or not. Then it’s a question of who will control it, and the relationship between government and other social institutions and the individual.

      If we believe that the purpose of government is to serve the interests of those governed, with their consent then the better question is who will control government and for how long.

      It is in the nature of people that power corrupts – and no matter how well intentioned, those given agency to act for others, or those who take such power by force, will inevitably become tyrannical and no longer serve the best interests of the people, and will be overthrown, often with great bloodshed. We know that is true because we can observe history.

      If, on the other hand, we believed – as you seem to – that government just occurs, and is its own justification, then it must be a real mystery as to why there has been – and is – is so much turmoil in the world.

      Yes, we understand your position. Democracy is tyranny.

      This is good. It’s not necessary that you agree.

      Ron H: We believe your position to be that a group of enlightened and oh so benevolent elites, who know what is best, should govern the masses, as the masses are too stupid to know what is in their own best interest.

      Z: “Not at all, as we have pointed out many times, to you, directly. In a modern democracy, power and decision-making is distributed.

      But only by enlisting the power of that monopoly on force that is government, and which you believe represents, and is chosen by, the people. And, as we have pointed out many times, to you, directly, that involves forcing peaceful people to do things they don’t wish to do, and to pay for things they don’t want, because someone else, or a group of someone elses believes they know what is in everyone’s best interest. It’s absurd.

      Z: “And little girls like unicorns.

      No, little girls *prefer* unicorns. They understand they are forced to accept ponies because someone else believes they know what is in the best interest of little girls. They are not wrong to strive for their preference.

      Z: “Yes. Governments compel taxes.

      The act of “compelling” is objectionable, and in our view illegitimate – as we have pointed out many times, to you, directly.

      By the way thanks for that. It’s a great phrase, and we plan to save it for use in the future.

      Ron H: We are ALWAYS in favor of less government regulation and MORE individual personal choice.

      Z: “Which is why your position is simplistic. It has a single answer to every question.

      Not at all. Basic principles are, by their very nature, simple. That’s why they’re called *basic*. Our answer are many and varied, but they are based on simple principles.

      In this case, we can observe that individual choice must often produces better outcomes overall than government regulations, which just as often produce unintended consequences that are worse than the problem they are intended to fix. therefore we *always* prefer choice.

  13. Ron H: markets impose a financial cost on those who discriminate, unless everyone is forced by law to do it.

    And as we have repeatedly pointed out, there may be even higher costs associated with bucking a powerful majority. People organize themselves whether you acknowledge it or not. Where the government doesn’t act, then “voluntary organizations” fill the gap.

    1. And as we have repeatedly pointed out, there may be even higher costs associated with bucking a powerful majority.

      And as we have repeatedly pointed out, to you, directly, that while that may be true in some cases, where it is not true, improving the bottom line will almost always be more important than indulging prejudices, because there is a financial cost. If that were not true, there would have been no need for laws requiring segregation.

      People organize themselves whether you acknowledge it or not. Where the government doesn’t act, then “voluntary organizations” fill the gap.

    2. People organize themselves whether you acknowledge it or not. Where the government doesn’t act, then “voluntary organizations” fill the gap.

      Of course people organize themselves, and they do so voluntarily for their mutual benefit. Where they don’t do so in a manner that meets the approval of those-who-know-best, which is seldom, it may be forced on them against their will.

      1. ” Of course people organize themselves, and they do so voluntarily for their mutual benefit. Where they don’t do so in a manner that meets the approval of those-who-know-best, which is seldom, it may be forced on them against their will.”

        even in the examples you have provided previously, you cite the use of force to make people do what the group voted on or stop him from damaging others property rights

        That’s what Z means by organizing… once you organize, you decide enforcement.

        If something is to be agreed to – it’s by majority vote and if you disagree, you are free to opt out but in a place where others have organized and you do not – you are at a disadvantage if they decide they will not trade with you or allow you to use cooperatively-obtained/managed infrastructure and services like police and fire.

        In other words, if the others organize within a defined boundary, then it’s likely you will have to go along whether you agree or not or you leave.

        You cannot make them “un-organize”

        1. Larry the lying, homophobic, former teacher from Virginia, what are you doing here??
          You agreed yesterday not to come around anymore, and here you are, just one day later, dumbing down a well thought-out, well articulated exchange between Ron and Zachriel that I was trying to enjoy reading.

          I hope they cancel Christmas dinner at the facility where you live.

          1. Mike – REally? are you DAFT! When did I say those things and guy your “facts” – as usual – are bogus to the bone boy

            As I recall the “conversation” – you got whiny and took your ball and went home to your mama to pout.

          2. Like usual, Larry, your recollection is about as off as you are….you have the 8 second memory bubble of a goldfish. To think I’d pout about something a little bitch like you said. Absurd.

            I apologize for Larry interrupting you gentlemen, please continue and we can just ignore him.

          3. re: ” I apologize for Larry interrupting you gentlemen, please continue and we can just ignore him.”

            Larry was in the original conversation guy.. check upthread.

            now go pout some more

          4. It doesn’t matter who started it, Larry, nothing intelligent happened until later. Not to diminish your role as the first shovel of dirt, but the architects are the ones building the structure.

            No go away like you promised.

          5. re: ” No go away like you promised.”

            I never said that Mike and you know it.

            you are the one who said “bye”.

            If I take the time and go through all this to find the posts that I’m talking about and put them all together, will you admit you’re wrong and stop coming here?

            Been nice knowing ya, Larry. I hope you find another poor bunch of saps to annoy soon! I certainly hope you’re a man of your word and I won’t see you here again…but I doubt it…

            and I said:

            ” you are unable or unwilling to dialogue honestly and accept other views. It’s either your view or they are morons. This seems to define a lot of folks like you – and yes I DID SAY THIS.”

            you, like some others here, cannot accept other viewpoints and you throw little hissy fits and spout pejoratives

            I know your type – it does not faze me. The way to deal with a bully is in his face,

          6. Ha! I invited you to Houston on my dime and you declined. So much for “in their face”. See ya, Larry. I have a life and must go out with what we call “friends”. Look it up.

  14. Ron H: It is in the nature of people that power corrupts – and no matter how well intentioned, those given agency to act for others, or those who take such power by force, will inevitably become tyrannical and no longer serve the best interests of the people, and will be overthrown, often with great bloodshed. We know that is true because we can observe history.

    That is, unless power is checked in a dynamically balanced system.

    Ron H: If, on the other hand, we believed – as you seem to – that government just occurs, and is its own justification, then it must be a real mystery as to why there has been – and is – is so much turmoil in the world.

    “Just occurs” is too vague to be meaningful. People naturally organize themselves, and are capable of thinking globally.

    Ron H: But only by enlisting the power of that monopoly on force that is government, and which you believe represents, and is chosen by, the people.

    Only roughly can government be said to represent the people. Rather people do express themselves at all levels of society, with government being only one aspect of that expression.

    Ron H: And, as we have pointed out many times, to you, directly, that involves forcing peaceful people to do things they don’t wish to do, and to pay for things they don’t want, because someone else, or a group of someone elses believes they know what is in everyone’s best interest. It’s absurd.

    Since the days of potty training, most people realize they have to do things in order to exist within society. Again, you oversimplify the world to make it fit your disposition.

    Ron H: No, little girls *prefer* unicorns. They understand they are forced to accept ponies because someone else believes they know what is in the best interest of little girls. They are not wrong to strive for their preference.

    Little girls are forced to accept ponies rather than horses because of the tyranny of their overlords. That’s funny.

    Ron H: The act of “compelling” is objectionable, and in our view illegitimate

    If you try to hit someone, they will probably compel you to stop.

    Ron H: Basic principles are, by their very nature, simple. That’s why they’re called *basic*. Our answer are many and varied, but they are based on simple principles.

    Adults balance countervailing values. This inevitably creates complexity, something you don’t seem to much recognize.

    Ron H: And as we have repeatedly pointed out, to you, directly, that while that may be true in some cases, where it is not true, improving the bottom line will almost always be more important than indulging prejudices, because there is a financial cost. If that were not true, there would have been no need for laws requiring segregation.

    The KKK was a “voluntary organization”, and enforced racial supremacy before there were laws requiring segregation.

    Ron H: Of course people organize themselves, and they do so voluntarily for their mutual benefit.

    For their perceived benefit. If that means maintaining racial purity, then that’s how they will organize themselves.

    1. Z: “That is, unless power is checked in a dynamically balanced system.

      No idea what you think that means, but the problem is that government power is not effectively checked. It grows ever greater until it becomes oppressive and is overthrown.

      Ron H: If, on the other hand, we believed – as you seem to – that government just occurs…

      Z: “Just occurs” is too vague to be meaningful. People naturally organize themselves, and are capable of thinking globally.

      Really? what, then, did this mean?

      Z: “Nevertheless, government will occur whether you like it or not. Then it’s a question of who will control it, and the relationship between government and other social institutions and the individual.</i."

      Are you losing track of your own argument?

      Z: "Only roughly can government be said to represent the people.

      Then what could its legitimate purpose possibly be?

      Z: “Rather people do express themselves at all levels of society, with government being only one aspect of that expression.

      Yes, the only one aspect with a monopoly on the use of force.

      Z: “Since the days of potty training, most people realize they have to do things in order to exist within society. Again, you oversimplify the world to make it fit your disposition.

      Perhaps you meant to write that people learn there are things they must NOT do in order to exist in society.

      Ron H: “The act of “compelling” is objectionable, and in our view illegitimate“l

      Z: “If you try to hit someone, they will probably compel you to stop.

      You have that backwards. We are objecting to the act of hitting, not defending against being hit. Are you getting confused? Your statement was:
      “Yes. Governments compel taxes.” Government in this instance is the hitter.

      The word “compel” is probably not your best choice to describe a defensive response. Let us help you with a definition:

      compel – verb (used with object)
      1. to force or drive, especially to a course of action.
      2. to secure or bring about by force.
      3. to force to submit; subdue.
      4. to overpower.

      Adults balance countervailing values.

      We have no idea what that means, unless it’s to compromise one’s principles.

      This inevitably creates complexity, something you don’t seem to much recognize.

      *paste*

      Ron H: “Not only do we not ignore the complexity of human society, we believe it is far too complex to be governed by a small group of people – no matter how smart, capable, and well intentioned they may be – that has been selected by a “powerful group acting en masse”.

      Z: “The KKK was a “voluntary organization”, and enforced racial supremacy before there were laws requiring segregation.

      Yes. and while we would support their right to free association, their use of aggressive force against others to enforce racial supremacy was no more legitimate than those later groups called government that used aggressive force, to enforce segregation.

      We would note that existing laws prohibiting aggression and even murder were not enforced against the KKK as many entrusted with enforcing such laws were themselves members of the KKK. Government failed at its most important job – to protect the people and their rights and their property.

      Ron H: “Of course people organize themselves, and they do so voluntarily for their mutual benefit.

      For their perceived benefit. If that means maintaining racial purity, then that’s how they will organize themselves.

      If KKK members perceived a benefit, then there must have been a benefit to them. We need not approve of it or consider it a benefit to us. No do we need to consider their actions legitimate.

      Note that everyone wasn’t forced to join such a despicable organization, nor were taxes or dues collected from everyone for what the KKK might have considered the benefit they were providing to the entire white population. Luckily the values of the KKK never enjoyed enough popularity to become the law of the land.

      1. re: compel

        you are compelled to:

        buy license plates and get a driver’s license
        and obey traffic signals, not own stinger missiles, have your kids educated, sign up for military service, stop when police pull you over, get searched before you get on a plane, not use the women’s room, have you new construction inspected, not pollute other people’s air and water or get permits, and a thousand other rules that are “compelled” or you will be denied liberty and/or have your property taken.

        In Native American tribes – there WERE rules and they were COMPELLED also and the taking of property and liberty were also penalties for breaking the rules.

        In early Colonist settlements, there were rules that were compelled and ditto property and liberty.

        your three choices (maybe more) – the same folks have now.

        1. – disobey the rules that are “compelled” and have your property or liberty threatened or taken.

        2. – leave and go to another place with “rules” that are also “compelled” but perhaps more to your liking.

        3. Buy an Island or large enough piece of land so that what you do does not affect others and others do not have to deal with you either.

        Z is much too tolerant and patient here because Ron does understand these things – he simply objects to them.

        I also end up with the same question I’ve asked before which is – what are the best countries or places in the world with regard to pure Libertarianism or what it is that Ron sees as “better”.

        The only countries that I see that are arguably more “free” in terms of rules and regulations are those that are run by strongman type leaders and have less representative government.

        1. Larry G: Z is much too tolerant and patient here because Ron does understand these things – he simply objects to them.

          That’s why we’re tolerant. There’s no arguing values, though you can show the implications of those values. He places supreme value on individual autonomy. Where he is wrong is thinking that anarchy will lead to increased individual autonomy. It will actually lead to a much worse tyranny than the democracy he decries.

          It’s conceivable to imagine a future where governments wither away. That’s what the communists thought would happen, but it didn’t quite work out that way.

        2. Larry G: I also end up with the same question I’ve asked before which is – what are the best countries or places in the world with regard to pure Libertarianism or what it is that Ron sees as “better”.

          To be clear, he’s an anarcho-capitalist. No government. Even libertarians believe that government should enforce contracts and basic rules of public behavior.

          1. “To be clear, he’s an anarcho-capitalist. No government. Even libertarians believe that government should enforce contracts and basic rules of public behavior.”

            agreed but he does say that he believes in Natural Law and cites it in the Constitution as presumably something that Government is responsible for protecting.

            Ron varies back and forth between those two at times.

            I’ve also pointed out that most people are social and want to organize and want rules, in part, to protect themselves from others who would, with no rules, forcibly take what they want from whoever they can get it from with as much force as it takes.

          2. Z: “To be clear, he’s an anarcho-capitalist. No government. Even libertarians believe that government should enforce contracts and basic rules of public behavior.

            Heh! To be clear, based on that comment, it’s apparent you have no idea what you’re talking about. If you’re really interested, and plan to discuss the subject, it might be in your interest to know something about anarcho-capitalism. We would recommend reading some Murray Rothbard on the subject. You can find some excellent sources of enlightenment here in the form of free electronic downloads.

            By the way anarchy is not a synonym for chaos. Limited, voluntary government doesn’t mean no rules. It is necessary that contracts be enforced, and rights protected. This blog comment section is too limited to provide you with the depth of knowledge you deserve on the subject, and we have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. Rothbard will be more than happy to help you.

      2. Ron H: No idea what you think that means, …

        We’re speaking of a system where there are a variety of countervailing forces which can result in a complex which may change chaotically, but remains in a quasi-stable state.

        Ron H: … but the problem is that government power is not effectively checked.

        Reasonably so. In modern democracies, most people are free to live their lives, speak their minds, and to associate freely; albeit with limitations that most accept as the price of living in society, but which you equate to tyranny. However, government may not be permanently checked.

        Zachriel: Nevertheless, government will occur whether you like it or not. Then it’s a question of who will control it, and the relationship between government and other social institutions and the individual.

        Just what we said. People naturally organize themselves, and are capable of thinking globally. They’re not molecules, though. They organize based on community, family, intelligence, necessity, passion. It’s what they do.

        Zachriel: Only roughly can government be said to represent the people.

        Ron H: Then what could its legitimate purpose possibly be?

        Um, to roughly represent the people as one aspect of their social organization.

        Ron H: Yes, the only one aspect with a monopoly on the use of force.

        Yet government isn’t a single entity, but a number of interlocking institutions, many of which can yield force independently. However, modern governments are more integrated than, say, feudal systems.

        Ron H: Perhaps you meant to write that people learn there are things they must NOT do in order to exist in society.

        Actually, you may defecate only in certain “approved” receptacles. Can’t imagine anything more tyrannical.

        Ron H: We are objecting to the act of hitting, not defending against being hit.

        Compel, to subdue. It may not be enough to defend, but you may arrest the person. You force them to submit. You may even force restitution or worse.

        Zachriel: Adults balance countervailing values.

        Ron H: We have no idea what that means, unless it’s to compromise one’s principles.

        Seriously?

        People have reasonable free speech, but not to shout fire in a crowded theater. It’s wrong to lie, but it’s heroic to lie to protect Jews hiding from Nazis.

        Adults realize that sometimes values conflict, and that less than perfect choices may have to be made.

        Ron H: Yes. and while we would support their right to free association, their use of aggressive force against others to enforce racial supremacy was no more legitimate than those later groups called government that used aggressive force, to enforce segregation.

        Regardless of your delicacy—power abhors a vacuum. People will organize politically, and will organize globally whether you want it to happen or not.

        Ron H: We would note that existing laws prohibiting aggression and even murder were not enforced against the KKK as many entrusted with enforcing such laws were themselves members of the KKK.

        Yes, a glimpse of anarchy in the night.

        Ron H: If KKK members perceived a benefit, then there must have been a benefit to them. We need not approve of it or consider it a benefit to us. No do we need to consider their actions legitimate.

        No, they were one of many “voluntary organizations”. Other organizations opposed them, but didn’t have sufficient power to overcome them until more recent times; and then it was the federal government that opposed them.

        1. Ron H: “No idea what you think that means, …

          Z: “We’re speaking of a system where there are a variety of countervailing forces which can result in a complex which may change chaotically, but remains in a quasi-stable state.

          Do you mean like global trade in which there is no overarching authority, but in which individual entities and groups decide on the rules and agree on how to enforce them?

          Ron H: … but the problem is that government power is not effectively checked.

          Reasonably so. In modern democracies, most people are free to live their lives, speak their minds, and to associate freely; albeit with limitations that most accept as the price of living in society, but which you equate to tyranny.

          *Free*, in that case, being a term defined by others, and the limits forced on those who don’t agree. Most people *agree* to limits that they see as mutually beneficial and in their own best interest.

          It’s important, in this context to keep in mind the difference between “society” and “state”.

          Z: “However, government may not be permanently checked.

          Thank you.

          Zachriel: “Nevertheless, government will occur whether you like it or not. Then it’s a question of who will control it, and the relationship between government and other social institutions and the individual.

          Z: “Just what we said. People naturally organize themselves, and are capable of thinking globally. They’re not molecules, though. They organize based on community, family, intelligence, necessity, passion. It’s what they do.

          Gee, no disagreement there. The problem arises when those who organize naturally decide they have a monopoly on correctness and decide to force their organization on others who aren’t interested in joining.

          Ron H: “Then what could its legitimate purpose possibly be?

          Z: “Um, to roughly represent the people as one aspect of their social organization.

          Meaningless drivel.

          Yet government isn’t a single entity, but a number of interlocking institutions, many of which can yield (wield, perhaps?)force independently. However, modern governments are more integrated than, say, feudal systems.

          In the US there are specific government entities, supposedly chosen to roughly represent the people, that are the top dog in their respective areas of responsibility – federal, state, county and local, each having a legal monopoly on the use of force. All other institutions must enlist the aid of these top dogs in order to legally wield any power over others.

          Ron H: “Perhaps you meant to write that people learn there are things they must NOT do in order to exist in society.

          Z: “Actually, you may defecate only in certain “approved” receptacles. Can’t imagine anything more tyrannical.

          That is one of the first things most people learn when they are training to be adult humans, and when they are older they realize the benefit of that training. It is mutually beneficial, and for all practical purposes, everyone agrees. Many times the debt people feel they owe their parents for this early education can be repaid when parents enter their twilight years and need reminding of the benefit of, or help in using, approved receptacles.

          Ron H: We are objecting to the act of hitting, not defending against being hit.

          Compel, to subdue. It may not be enough to defend, but you may arrest the person. You force them to submit. You may even force restitution or worse.

          All that falls easily into the definition of defending with force, by whatever means is necessary, up to and including the use of deadly force, to preserve your life and your property.

          Zachriel: Adults balance countervailing values.

          Z: “People have reasonable free speech, but not to shout fire in a crowded theater.

          That is a poor example. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is a property rights issue, not a free speech issue.

          Z: “It’s wrong to lie, but it’s heroic to lie to protect Jews hiding from Nazis.

          Lying is speech, and it’s everyone’s subjective value judgement as to whether or when it’s wrong. We don’t imagine many people struggled with their consciences about lying being morally wrong when confronted with your Nazi example, but instead struggled to determine the personal physical risk to themselves and their families if caught lying.

          Z: “Adults realize that sometimes values conflict, and that less than perfect choices may have to be made.

          We are not aware of any perfect choices. People make what they believe are their best choices. We note that your are applying your claim about conflicting values to individuals, which is the level at which such conflicts occur. Good for you.

          Z: “Regardless of your delicacy—power abhors a vacuum. People will organize politically…

          We have never disagreed with that, only with the notion that some group must impose its will on all others at some level. we know you understand this, as you have used the example of the KKK, and have explained that such a voluntary group may organized to serve a perceived need when government hasn’t respond to that need.

          …and will organize globally whether you want it to happen or not.

          We see no evidence of global organization, only agreements among separate groups who find a mutual benefit in cooperation and exchange. Something we support at every level.

          Ron H: “We would note that existing laws prohibiting aggression and even murder were not enforced against the KKK as many entrusted with enforcing such laws were themselves members of the KKK.

          Yes, a glimpse of anarchy in the night.

          We again suggest you learn more about the term “anarchy”, as you are using it incorrectly. At the time the KKK originally arose, there was government and the law in place at every level that forbade almost every one of their actions except the right to assemble. Federal law at the time provided protection of individuals through the rights originally acknowledged and protected by the Constitution and the bill of rights, and in addition, then recent amendments had extended those protections to apply to the states as well, and had guaranteed equal protection to all *persons*.

          Despite all that, the overarching government – supposedly chosen and elected by the people – failed miserably in those most basic of responsibilities; protection of persons and property against aggressive force and violence. And yet, you can claim that this overarching government is the best possible form of governance, much better than voluntary organizations.

          Z: “No, they were one of many “voluntary organizations”. Other organizations opposed them, but didn’t have sufficient power to overcome them until more recent times; and then it was the federal government that opposed them.

          They were overcome when enough government officials, sworn to uphold the law, decided to actually do so. Big deal.

          Are you aware that you have argued against yourself by suggesting that voluntary organizations have no real power compared to that wielded by government, but at another time claiming that a powerful group acting en masse can convince business people to act against their own best interest, or risk being kicked out of the club. Can voluntary groups be effective at governance or not?

  15. Zachriel: To be clear, he’s an anarcho-capitalist. No government. Even libertarians believe that government should enforce contracts and basic rules of public behavior.

    Ron H: Heh! To be clear, based on that comment, it’s apparent you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Or perhaps we are using terms in their ordinary sense. Government usually refers to the governing body of a nation or community. We can also talk about all the various institutions that make up society, but that’s usually not what we mean by government.

    Ron H: By the way anarchy is not a synonym for chaos.

    We are quite aware of that. Again, you don’t seem to have even a cursory understanding of our views.

    Ron H: It is necessary that contracts be enforced, and rights protected.

    Yes, that’s right. For instance, the Corleone family enforces its contracts and rights.

  16. Ron H: Do you mean like global trade in which there is no overarching authority, but in which individual entities and groups decide on the rules and agree on how to enforce them?

    There actually is an international trade system that includes most major players. However, it was preceded by a much looser system, albeit one largely regulated by trading empires.

    Ron H: *Free*, in that case, being a term defined by others, and the limits forced on those who don’t agree.

    As we said, there is no way to argue fundamental values. If your concern for individual autonomy is such that if you can’t defecate on your front lawn, then you think you are being tyrannized, then you will probably never be happy in modern society.

    Zachriel: However, government may not be permanently checked.

    Ron H: Thank you.

    The price of liberty is eternal vigilance — Thomas Jefferson.

    Ron H: The problem arises when those who organize naturally decide they have a monopoly on correctness and decide to force their organization on others who aren’t interested in joining.

    Democracy does not provide perfect liberty. While you might imagine a freer society, you mustn’t confuse that vision with a practical political program.

    Zachriel: Um, to roughly represent the people as one aspect of their social organization.

    Ron H: Meaningless drivel.

    Hardly. It means government is not the only expression of human social organization, while people have some say in decisions made at the level of government.

    1. Z: “Or perhaps we are using terms in their ordinary sense. Government usually refers to the governing body of a nation or community. We can also talk about all the various institutions that make up society, but that’s usually not what we mean by government.

      Or perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse. You have used the term anarcho-capitalist in a manner that indicates you have little understanding of its meaning.

      Z: “We are quite aware of that. Again, you don’t seem to have even a cursory understanding of our views.

      Au contraire. Your view is that it is legitimate for one group to force its will on everyone else and in addition to force them to pay for it.

      Z: “Yes, that’s right. For instance, the Corleone family enforces its contracts and rights.

      Very effectively, too. Is that an example of countervailing forces maintaining a balance?

      That’s one alternate form of government, but notice that it’s a mostly voluntary organization, and its power derives from the ability to satisfy a market for goods and services that another group that knows-what-is-best-for-us-all has forbidden people to buy.

      The law of supply and demand is immutable, and interference almost always results in unintended consequences – often negative.

      Z: “There actually is an international trade system that includes most major players. However, it was preceded by a much looser system, albeit one largely regulated by trading empires.

      There’s an international political body, yes. It obviously has no interest in economics or consumers or in actually facilitating trade.

      Z: “As we said, there is no way to argue fundamental values. If your concern for individual autonomy is such that if you can’t defecate on your front lawn, then you think you are being tyrannized, then you will probably never be happy in modern society.

      Hyperbole much?

      The price of liberty is eternal vigilance — Thomas Jefferson.

      Few have listened, or even have any idea what that means – obviously.

      Z: “Democracy does not provide perfect liberty. While you might imagine a freer society, you mustn’t confuse that vision with a practical political program.

      A practical political program that forces otherwise peaceful people, who only wish to go about living their lives and minding their own business, to join the club against their will and even to pay for the privilege! As if practicality and expedience were the most important features of government.

      Z: “Hardly. It means government is not the only expression of human social organization, while people have some say in decisions made at the level of government.

      *Some* say? Who should have the rest? Imposing the will of the majority on everyone is tyranny. Not sure why you have so much trouble with that.

      1. re: ” Imposing the will of the majority on everyone is tyranny.”

        so Thomas Jefferson and company when they wrote the Constitution codified “tyranny”?

        1. so Thomas Jefferson and company when they wrote the Constitution codified “tyranny”?

          Your willful ignorance on the subject of the founding of the US and those who took part in it is truly astounding.

          Despite repeated corrections, you continue to quote Jefferson’s writing in the Declaration of Independence and call it the Constitution. You repeatedly, as above, attribute the Constitution, in part, to the work of Jefferson, when, in fact, he had no part in it. As everyone knows, he was the ambassador to France at the time, and was unable to attend the constitutional convention.

          It is glaringly obvious to almost anyone who reads your comments on the subject that you don’t know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, don’t know who was involved in writing either one, and don’t know what’s contained in either one.

          And YET – you continue to incorrectly reference those documents and people.

          You are a pathetic laughingstock.

          1. re: “so Thomas Jefferson and company when they wrote the Constitution codified “tyranny”?”

            While it is true he did not sign the Constitution, he was an influence to it and to the principles in it INCLUDING the fact that he supported what Ron the Whack-a-do calls “tyranny”.

            the only ignorance here is the willful refusal for Ron to admit that Jefferson and other founding fathers did indeed support the formation of a government that would be elected by a majority and would make decisions by a majority rule – which Ron-the-wacka-do calls “tyranny”.

            According to Ron’s “logic” any govt that operates according to majority rule is “tyrannical”.

            he talks a LOT about a LOT of ancillary issues but the heart of his philosophy is that govts like the US are, by definition, “tyrannical”.

          2. ” Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation’s capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic.”

          3. Ron H: Your willful ignorance on the subject of the founding of the US and those who took part in it is truly astounding.

            Leaving that aside, everyone who supported establishing a new constitutional republic would be, in your philosophy, supporters of tyranny.

          4. Leaving that aside, everyone who supported establishing a new constitutional republic would be, in your philosophy, supporters of tyranny.

            That would depend, we suppose, on what they had in mind. Would we be forced to become members of this new constitutional republic?

            A careful reading of the current Constitution reveals very few positive powers granted to the the federal government with regard to the people, and many, many prohibitions.

            As we have pointed out many times, to you, directly, we would be content with the original Constitution if current government was confined to it, and if on any question of power it was interpreted as being a limiting rather than enabling document, but that hasn’t been the case..

            It is our view, as we have pointed out many times, to you, directly, that any amount of power given to others will not remain limited, but will inevitably expand until the result is the overreaching, intrusive, liberty-limiting leviathan we have today.

          5. An uncredited cut and paste from Larry:

            Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence.

            Yes, Larry, Jefferson had an influence on the new Constitution as did John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, and Jesus Christ – NONE of whom wrote or signed the Constitution.

  17. Ron H: In the US there are specific government entities, supposedly chosen to roughly represent the people, that are the top dog in their respective areas of responsibility – federal, state, county and local, each having a legal monopoly on the use of force. All other institutions must enlist the aid of these top dogs in order to legally wield any power over others.

    They have a say in the use of force. So, if someone has injured you, you go to court for recompense.

    Ron H: That is one of the first things most people learn when they are training to be adult humans, and when they are older they realize the benefit of that training. It is mutually beneficial, and for all practical purposes, everyone agrees.

    You sidestepped. What if someone doesn’t agree?

    Ron H: That is a poor example. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is a property rights issue, not a free speech issue.

    So you say, but maybe the person shouting disagrees.

    Ron H: Lying is speech, and it’s everyone’s subjective value judgement as to whether or when it’s wrong.

    Many people think lying is wrong. Therefore, unlike your simplistic world, they have to balance various values when deciding on a course of action.

    Zachriel: People will organize politically and will organize globally whether you want it to happen or not

    Ron H: We see no evidence of global organization, only agreements among separate groups who find a mutual benefit in cooperation and exchange. Something we support at every level.

    “Global” in this case means comprehensive. Thinking globally means Genghis Khan sees disparate tribes and can imagine, then implement, unification.

    Zachriel: Yes, a glimpse of anarchy in the night.

    Ron H: We again suggest you learn more about the term “anarchy”, as you are using it incorrectly.

    We are using “anarchy” in its normal sense, absence of government authority, which typifies the night raids of “voluntary associations”.

    Ron H: And yet, you can claim that this overarching government is the best possible form of governance, much better than voluntary organizations.

    You still can’t seem to get our position right. When conditions are conducive, government will arise, then it’s a question of who will control the government.

    Ron H: They were overcome when enough government officials, sworn to uphold the law, decided to actually do so. Big deal.

    Huge deal, actually. It’s considered one of the most important social movements of the last century.

    Ron H: Are you aware that you have argued against yourself by suggesting that voluntary organizations have no real power compared to that wielded by government, but at another time claiming that a powerful group acting en masse can convince business people to act against their own best interest, or risk being kicked out of the club.

    Who said voluntary organizations have no real power? That is directly contrary to our position, which we have stated directly to you many, many times.

    1. They have a say in the use of force. So, if someone has injured you, you go to court for recompense

      Of course. A court widely accepted and recognized for its impartiality.

      You sidestepped. What if someone doesn’t agree?

      They may be ostracized. But, to protect them, you would force them to use an approved receptacle. They need not decide for themselves to take responsibility for their own bowel movements, but can rely on you to tell them where they can defecate, and how much water they may then use to flush it all away.

      Ron H: That is a poor example. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is a property rights issue, not a free speech issue.

      So you say, but maybe the person shouting disagrees.

      It’s not us, and it doesn’t matter what the person shouting believes.

      We presume that a theater is private property, thus subject to the wishes and rules of the property owner. The property owner sells licenses to enter the property and experience a performance of some type. Shouting fire, or any other disruption of the performance violates the license granted by the property owner. Other ticket holders have been denied their right to experience the performance licensed to them, and may demand refunds, causing the owner to suffer a financial loss.

      No one has a right to do or say whatever they wish on private property. Free speech is what government may not deny to people in public spaces – in the US.

      And that, boys and girls, is why you aren’t allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater.

      Z: “Many people think lying is wrong.

      Well then, that settles it. What “many people” believe, should be the prevailing definition.

      Z: “Global” in this case means comprehensive. Thinking globally means Genghis Khan sees disparate tribes and can imagine, then implement, unification.

      Heh. Why are we are not surprised that in your view, subjugation = unification? The Genghis Khan model required continual conquest and plunder, as it produced nothing itself, and when it ran out of other people’s money – so to speak – the empire collapsed.

      Yes, we know, it didn’t happen during his lifetime.

      Z: “We are using “anarchy” in its normal sense, absence of government authority, which typifies the night raids of “voluntary associations”.

      And as we’ve pointed out many times, to you, directly, government authority to oppose such night raids and punish those involved DID exist at that time. In that case central government with a legal monopoly on the use of force was unable to protect people from bands of criminals. In fact, some levels of government later codified unequal treatment and separation of races into the law. Why do you prefer that to voluntary organizations?

      Incidentally, most libertarians believe that initiating aggressive force against others, as in night raids, is a violation of their rights, and a therefore a crime. Of course Common Law forbids it also.

      The KKK and night riders might be better described as outlaws rather than anarchists. They recognized existing government and the law when it suited them.

      Z: “You still can’t seem to get our position right. When conditions are conducive, government will arise, then it’s a question of who will control the government.

      You have made that position clear many times, to us, directly. And our position is that it doesn’t much matter. A large central government with a monopoly on the use of force, whether it consists of one person or a million people, looks the same to anyone who is forced to do things against their will and is forced to pay for it. Such a government cannot remain limited to a few essential tasks, but will grow ever larger and more oppressive over time. We have not seen otherwise. It is in the nature of human beings.

      Huge deal, actually. It’s considered one of the most important social movements of the last century.

      We would consider the Progressive movement in the early part of the century to be one of the most important social movements, although not a positive one.

      Z: “Who said voluntary organizations have no real power? That is directly contrary to our position, which we have stated directly to you many, many times.

      …compared… to… that… wielded… by… government…“

  18. {bump}

    Zachriel: Adults balance countervailing values.

    Ron H: We have no idea what that means, unless it’s to compromise one’s principles.

  19. Ron H: But, to protect them, you would force them to use an approved receptacle.

    Tyranny!!

    1. Not an meaningful response, “Larry”.

  20. Ron H: They may be ostracized.

    Because ostracizing people is nearly as effective at disease prevention as modern sewer systems.

    1. Now it’s about disease control?

      If you were to give it some thought, it might occur to you that people in the past – in Western countries at least – who lived nowhere near others, and were under no social or legal pressure to do so, constructed “approved receptacles” in which to defecate rather than anywhere the urge came over them. Why would they do that if no one was forcing them to do so?

      1. Ron / Zach,

        I think asking/answering the question; why did people choose not to poop on the floor… or murder each other over petty disputes, only strengthens the misconceptions that Zach has.

        It doesn’t seem to matter how many times it gets explained, to them, directly, they will never try to understand that limited government isn’t the same as no government. I’m sure that many of them would recoil if I said that wanting less than a military industrial complex is equivalent to being completely anti-military.

        I suppose the only way people can gain the comfort necessary to ignore serious and growing conversation about the mounting issues caused by big government is to say that those who don’t want towering laws, created by special interest, allowing for no gray and enforced by a protected class of crony bureaucrats must be the same as taking a dump anywhere we please.

        1. Mike: It doesn’t seem to matter how many times it gets explained, to them, directly, they will never try to understand that limited government isn’t the same as no government.

          That’s fine. If someone doesn’t conform to sanitary rules, for instance, how did you intend to enforce them?

          1. re: limited govt vs no govt.

            beyond the issue of what “limited” means and the fact that different folks have different views of what really constitutes “limited” – you still end up with under what protocol whatever level of govt you have – will operate and there are two basic choices – representative and autocratic/plutocratic (rulers not chosen by those who are governed).

            Ron likes to talk about violence and force visited on the individual but more often, the assets/property of the individual are taken in lieu of his “debts”.

            For instance, in the case of water/sewer, if he does not pay his bill – they don’t come to beat up him and his family – they put a lien on his property or similar.

            whether or not he is “forced” to hook up to water and sewer ultimately depends on what he does with his effluent and if that effluent ends up on property he does not own at which point he is affecting other people’s “rights”.

            then we have the irony of “limited govt” itself which if you travel around the planet to find the best examples of “limited” government, those governments invariably have substantial military and police forces to protect those who preside over the “limited govt” and to keep down insurrections and anarchy.

            So what Ron advocates is something of which there are no real world examples of. It’s a concept, a philosophy that if it were practical and viable – it would grow and become the way that some countries actually govern and operate.

            This country chose it’s method of governance when it was founded and it was representative governance of which I known only one method – majority vote.

            The Constitution did specifically mention limited government and natural rights as CONCEPTS but did not enumerate and articulate them and, in fact, left that actual determination up to those who would be governed and those that represent them.

            Ron acts like myself and Z and a few others are “advocating” from equally-competing alternatives from which to choose and uses the “ignorance” word and other infantile pejoratives to condemn that “kind” of thinking but all Z and myself are doing is basically explaining how the real systems that actually exist and function – how they work and the rationale behind how they work.

            we’re not advocating some concept.

            we’re showing how the world currently works and are surmising that in the “free market” of countries and governance there must be a reason why the vast majority of countries do work the way they do and that there are few, if any, real work examples of what Ron advocates.

            Merry Christmas guys!

          2. Mike: “It doesn’t seem to matter how many times it gets explained, to them, directly, they will never try to understand that limited government isn’t the same as no government.

            Z: “That’s fine. If someone doesn’t conform to sanitary rules, for instance, how did you intend to enforce them?

            Q.E.D.

          3. re: ” If someone doesn’t conform to sanitary rules”

            if someone is endangering other people and their property rights, what is the remedy? To continue to let them essentially degrade others property rights?

            Someone who is carrying disease or engaging in practices that spread disease to others is affecting their property rights – right?

            this is why immunization shots are required by big nasty government, to protect others rights.

      2. Ron H: Now it’s about disease control?

        Of course it’s about disease control. Why do you think societies developed sewer systems?

        1. Of course it’s about disease control. Why do you think societies developed sewer systems?

          Umm. Let’s see. Probably for the same reason someone who lived 300 years ago, out of sight of their nearest neighbor did – someone who had no concept of what caused disease?

          Or maybe because in a city it’s not practical for each household to have their own septic system? So instead let’s agree to pipe it all away from our homes and into the river. Obviously if something isn’t done to move effluent away from where we live, at some point we won’t be able to move about.

          Since earliest times, cities have had sewer systems. Maybe people just didn’t like the smell, or didn’t like shoveling shit off the sidewalk before they could go to work. It’s possible some of them left records that would shed light on the subject for you, but it wasn’t for disease control.

          1. re: sanitary sewers – were not always in cities …. it took serious outbreaks of cholera and other diseases and understanding where they came from PLUS understanding that if every city dumped untreated sewage in a river that the cities downstream would be drinking that sewage if they did not have separate disease-free drinking water infrastructure also.

            one relevant point being that once water/sewer were installed that it was not “optional” if someone still wanted to dispose of their waste some other way than paying for the sewer.

            at that point, if you do not want to pay and be subject to those nasty, oppressive, govmint rules, you would have to leave and find some place where the people around you were unaffected or did not care if you disposed of your waste in ways that it left your property and ended up on property you did not own.

  21. Larry G: whether or not he is “forced” to hook up to water and sewer ultimately depends on what he does with his effluent and if that effluent ends up on property he does not own at which point he is affecting other people’s “rights”.

    Disease doesn’t know boundaries. Most people wouldn’t consider it reasonable to allow disease to fester within a property with no power to stop it before it spreads beyond the boundary. Effective defence against disease is necessarily preemptive. This is just an example of how the public has a vested interest with what occurs on a private property, and the necessity of rules that govern individual behavior. Nor is this an academic case, as water and sewer were important to the development of the modern notion of the public good.

  22. Ron H: Q.E.D.

    Claiming an answer is not an answer. We’ve asked several times.

    Ron H: Probably for the same reason someone who lived 300 years ago, out of sight of their nearest neighbor did – someone who had no concept of what caused disease?

    Three hundred years ago, untreated effluence was the cause of regular outbreaks of disease. It wasn’t until the nineteenth century development of epidemiology that practical solutions were found.

    Ron H: Or maybe because in a city it’s not practical for each household to have their own septic system? So instead let’s agree to pipe it all away from our homes and into the river. Obviously if something isn’t done to move effluent away from where we live, at some point we won’t be able to move about.

    So if someone doesn’t cooperate with your scheme? We’ve asked this several times.

    1. Z: “Claiming an answer is not an answer. We’ve asked several times.

      Mike opined that you are unable to see the distinction between limited government and no government. Your question about enforcing sanitary rules appeared to support that view.

      Z: “Three hundred years ago, untreated effluence was the cause of regular outbreaks of disease. It wasn’t until the nineteenth century development of epidemiology that practical solutions were found.

      That’s correct. And as we have pointed out many times, to you, directly, the point we keep making, and you keep ignoring, is that since people have had sewer systems, cesspools, and septic systems since earliest times, when people had no idea what caused disease, they must have been used for some reason other than for disease control.

      Perhaps people just don’t like human waste collecting in their immediate surroundings where they live, eat and sleep. Few animals foul their own nests, and even fewer of them understand epidemiology.

      There must be something else at work here, even though removing waste from one’s immediate vicinity acts to control disease, it just isn’t likely that it was done in the past for that specific reason.

      Ron H: “Or maybe because in a city it’s not practical for each household to have their own septic system? So instead let’s agree to pipe it all away from our homes and into the river. Obviously if something isn’t done to move effluent away from where we live, at some point we won’t be able to move about.

      Z: “So if someone doesn’t cooperate with your scheme? We’ve asked this several times.

      What scheme is that? It’s not clear what you mean by “conform to sanitary rules”. Whose rules?

      Your comment:

      Disease doesn’t know boundaries.

      OK.

      Most people wouldn’t consider it reasonable to allow disease to fester within a property with no power to stop it before it spreads beyond the boundary.

      How would most people know disease was festering within a private property?

      Effective defence against disease is necessarily preemptive. This is just an example of how the public has a vested interest with what occurs on a private property, and the necessity of rules that govern individual behavior. Nor is this an academic case, as water and sewer were important to the development of the modern notion of the public good.

      There are very few truly public goods. Perhaps you meant common goods.

      Are you asking what should be done if someone doesn’t want water or sewer service to their property?

      While it’s hard to imagine why someone wouldn’t want them, we guess they would just go without them. What problem do you have with that?

      This issue could quickly develop into a tiresome discussion of original ownership, self ownership, and the mechanisms involved in exchanges of property rights.

      Are you suggesting

      1. Please ignore “are you suggesting”

        1. re: ” Please ignore “are you suggesting””

          and much which was above it!

          animals DO foul their nest dude… have you ever seen cattle eating grass among the previously excreted turd pies?

          cess pools do not work in dense settlement patterns like towns and it’s not the sewage per se that was the problem, it was the sewage finding it’s way into water supplies used for drinking – somewhat like those cows.

          even when people got smart enough to realize that they had to keep the sewage away from their drinking water – they still would dump it in a creek so the next town downstream could enjoy it.

          Now how did they decide to “regulate” others and take their “right to pollute”?

          so you’re getting your drinking water from a stream and the city upstream is dumping their raw sewage into that stream to protect their town from disease ? and what about the town that is downstream that is drinking their sewage?

          this is what government is about. you can call it “limited” or not but the truth is your idea of “limited” is not the same as someone else and if the standard becomes the lowest common denominator – then everyone ends up drinking polluted water.

          But Luckily for us, our Constitution says that we can vote on such things and that the majority will decide the issue – and yes.. that then means the big, bad, nasty government will come and “savage” those who continue to dump raw sewage that leaves their property and goes on property they don’t on..

          this is one of the purposes of govt – to protect property rights from those – who as individuals – would trample on others rights.

  23. Ron H: Mike opined that you are unable to see the distinction between limited government and no government.

    Yes, we understand the difference. We also understand how power can be decentralized. We were asking for a specific vision of how he thinks it should be implemented.

    Ron H: What scheme is that? It’s not clear what you mean by “conform to sanitary rules”. Whose rules?

    Oh gee whiz. Epidemiology indicates the safe disposal of waste to reduce disease. What do you do with people who refuse to conform with prudent sanitary guidelines? Do you wait for the outbreak of disease?

    Ron H: There are very few truly public goods. Perhaps you meant common goods.

    A reduction in transmittable diseases is a public good.

    Ron H: While it’s hard to imagine why someone wouldn’t want them, we guess they would just go without them.

    Turns out that people, like animals, will foul their nests. You act as if this hasn’t been a problem for humanity. People have been dumping their wastes into streams since before history.

    Ron H: What problem do you have with that?

    Um, because it can cause disease. Sewage is just an example, but an important one. It involves water rights, the growth of cities, and modern epidemiology. We want to understand how this works in your posited anarchistic political environment.

    1. Zachriel,

      You say you understand but I’m not sure you do. If you had a clear grasp of the basic desires of those who wish for less intrusive government, you wouldn’t have brought up toilet tyranny at all…for a few reasons:

      1. You’ve brought up the, and possibly only remaining, example of ones rights to make a mistake in this country. If I so opposed the sewage system, I can choose to live in a place where digging a hole (or not) is perfectly fine.
      If I choose to live in a city that regulates sewage, that is my choice.

      2. Your point about water contamination is off the mark by a mile. If you understood anything we were saying, you’d know that those kinds of externalities are what we think the government should be enforcing. (ah, ya see what we did there? right! we do think there are reasons for laws and government and almost all have to do with my actions affecting you in a negative way. the breakdown occurs when a third party starts to stretch the law to include more “victims” for political gain)

      3. Your sewage point is just absurd and extreme (proving you don’t get it). If you want to talk about something, try sticking to the subject of the original post…maybe we can talk about warrantless gps tracking…the prison industrial complex….

      I can tell by reading what you write that you’re a very sharp guy. I don’t think you need to stretch things to the ridiculous to make your point. But, if you do, you may want to consider that to be the point where you’ve run out of actual ammunition on the topic.

    2. You act as if this hasn’t been a problem for humanity. People have been dumping their wastes into streams since before history.

      Of course they have. That’s how waste was disposed of until recently, and still is in most of the world. In fact until 1943 the City of San Diego, CA dumped its raw sewage into the Pacific ocean. “The solution to pollution is dilution.” as they used to say.

      Until modern germ theory, the major concern was getting waste away from where you lived.

      Ron H: What problem do you have with that?

      Z: “Um, because it can cause disease. Sewage is just an example, but an important one. It involves water rights, the growth of cities, and modern epidemiology. We want to understand how this works in your posited anarchistic political environment.

      From previous comments we understand that you are unable to imagine a society in which there is no central authority in charge, whether it be Genghis Khan or the tyranny of the majority. That lack of imagination makes it difficult to convey concepts to you that are foreign to your statist mindset, but we will try.

      You should first understand that a voluntary society is not without laws and codes of conduct and judges and courts, and in fact is not unlike the world we live in today. You would find most institutions that exist today, except for those that have a monopoly on public services, and the use of force, and use that power to force peaceful people who are not harming others, to do things against their will, and additionally ask them to pay for it. Services now provided by government could easily be provided by private business allowed to compete for customers.

      Such a society is not without means of defense, or the ability to punish wrongdoers and enforce judgements.

      If a person threatens others, for example, by firing a weapon at them, appropriate force can be used to stop them, up to and including lethal force. Not at all different from today. If someone threatens others with disease they can take appropriate action to defend themselves, individually and as a group. The nature of that defense might depend on the immediacy of the threat. Lobbing the bodies of plague victims over the city wall, for instance would most likely be taken quite seriously and could result in the lobber’s death.

      There would NOT, however, be an assumption that anyone not connected to a common sewer system, if that is one of the rules you are concerned about, was automatically assumed to be a death merchant, intent on spreading disease with their refuse.

      1. Ron,

        I find myself in the unusual position of seeing both sides, albeit in a semi-retarded conversation.
        Aren’t there situations in which something is inevitable and perfectly ok to prevent? We know that sewage causes disease. Couldn’t we liken it to outlawing something like shooting someone in the head, even in the case of brain injury research? I mean, they may not die…and they’re willing participants….clearly, you shouldn’t shoot stupid people in the head…

        1. ” Couldn’t we liken it to outlawing something like shooting someone in the head, even in the case of brain injury research?”

          hmmm…. this soliloquy could prove interesting… ;-)

        2. Mike

          I find myself in the unusual position of seeing both sides, albeit in a semi-retarded conversation.
          Aren’t there situations in which something is inevitable and perfectly ok to prevent? We know that sewage causes disease. Couldn’t we liken it to outlawing something like shooting someone in the head, even in the case of brain injury research? I mean, they may not die…and they’re willing participants….clearly, you shouldn’t shoot stupid people in the head…”

          Thanks for asking, Mike. I’ll try to explain my view on this.

          That shooting-in-head example is a good one. We each have a moral compass, and for *most* of us, it tells us not to shoot stupid people in the head even if they agree to be shot. There are already laws – just ones – against using violent force to harm others. Therefore, there’s no need for a law specifically prohibiting shooting stupid people in the head.

          Likewise, *most* of us know that we don’t like sewage building up in our immediate vicinity. It’s possible we have evolved that aversion because our long ago ancestors who didn’t have it, died out from diseases, leaving only people who wished to flush their refuse away from themselves, even if they didn’t know why.

          Throughout history people have worked to make their lives better and easier, and the development of modern sewer systems is part of that. Almost everyone in countries wealthy enough to have such systems prefer using modern toilets to just relieving themselves wherever the urge strikes them. In fact there must be so few people who don’t like modern plumbing, that there is no thought given to their preference by builders. I’ve never seen “no bathrooms” as an option in any of their models.

          I’ve never seen a rental agreement, a purchase agreement nor a homeowner’s association agreement that requires my promise to use the toilets provided.

          If a person really doesn’t like modern plumbing, they can instead use their toilets as attractive planters with convenient watering systems.

          Z, who is unable to imagine a society in which there is no central authority with power over others, has framed a hypothetical “what if ” question based on the premise that there are people who don’t care about their own convenience and health, nor the health of others, and that there MUST be rules to protect us from such people, enforced by a central government with a monopoly on the use of force, and that a voluntary society, such as I advocate, has no way of dealing with such a threat.

          On the contrary, individuals and groups of individuals have a fundamental right to defend themselves and others. If a person poses a clear danger to others by threatening their lives and health, in some way, appropriate defensive and preventive measures are called for.

          The nature of their response would depend on the immediacy of the threat,

          In other words, yes, this is a silly discussion, except for Z’s question of how do you get everyone to comply with what some of us *know* is best for everyone – better, even than they know for themselves.

          1. re: ” except for Z’s question of how do you get everyone to comply with what some of us *know* is best for everyone ”

            as per your usual, you’ve veered totally into LA LA Land.

            the premise is that you are engaging in an activity that can harm others – and those others are going to come see you about your irresponsible behavior(s) that will end up causing sanctions against such behaviors – otherwise known as regulations.

            you seem to not understand that your property rights end at your nose.

            If you things that endanger/harm a lot of other people, they’re not going to wait until you harm them to sue you – they are going to stop you.

          2. you seem to not understand that your property rights end at your nose“…

            Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

            larry g‘s witless wisdom strikes again!

          3. re: digging a hole in the ground

            sadly – if you live where there is water/sewer you cannot refuse it – for good reason – and no, you cannot dig a hole in the ground even if you own the land because a condition of occupancy whether it be rent or own , water/sewer or septic is that you must have approved sanitation facilities – and again for good reason – and this is how most regulations start out – to protect property rights from those who think their property rights are unfettered and unbounded.

            it’s hilarious listening to the pontification over how people did not foul their own nests because even animals don’t do it and don’t drink water polluted with their own feces

            and how if you choose to pee in a hole, it is your “right”.. to do so even if that hole ultimately drains into water used by others for drinking.

            Thanks to Z for managing to get you to walk from your anarchist blather to at least that point but of course like the proverbial horse, you would not drink…

            ;-)

          4. it’s hilarious listening to the pontification over how people did not foul their own nests because even animals don’t do it and don’t drink water polluted with their own feces“…

            You really don’t get out much do you larry g?

            It seems to me that your view on how the world works is through the lens of American suburbia…

            Thanks to Z for managing to get you to walk from your anarchist blather to at least that point but of course like the proverbial horse, you would not drink“…

            What?!?!

            There’s that tenuous grip on reality kicking in again…

          5. American suburbia?

            Jesus H Keerist!

            you two would creep out most normal folk…I doubt they’d let you rent or buy unless it was on acreage!

            ;-)

          6. you two would creep out most normal folk“…

            I’m probably going to be sorry for asking this but larry g how would you know what is ‘normal folk‘?

          7. re: normal folk – people who pay taxes, send their kids to public schools, use public roads, think water/sewer are “good” things, support protection of the environment, believe in the Constitution, representative govt with majority rule voting, social security, Medicare, etc, etc,

            you boys are clearly fringe… but in your Alice in Wonderland world.. you think you are the norm and play cur dog games with those who don’t agree with you.

            No elected official represents your views. Most local elected do tax for schools, for law enforcement, for fire/EMS, do build and maintain public roads, do have libraries and parks and recreation, etc, etc, to include water/sewer.

            that’s “normal”…. for most folks…

          8. send their kids to public schools“…

            I think that was what happened to you larry g and now look at the mess you are…

          9. juandos

            “larry g‘s witless wisdom strikes again!”

            Do you suppose he meant to say that my rights stop at HIS nose?

            I’ve read something like that before, but never the one he posted. Poor clueless Larry.

          10. ” Do you suppose he meant to say that my rights stop at HIS nose?”

            Nope.

            YOUR NOSE. Cretins always assume the other guys nose is further away… so you tell them it stops at THEIR nose so there is no mistake – which is what you have to do with knuckle-dragger types.

          11. larry g horn of stupidity is boundless: “YOUR NOSE. Cretins always assume the other guys nose is further away… so you tell them it stops at THEIR nose so there is no mistake – which is what you have to do with knuckle-dragger types“…

            Amazing!

            Not the least bit embarrassed putting that inane nonsense out there for all to see I’m guessing…

          12. Do you suppose he meant to say that my rights stop at HIS nose?“…

            Well ron h considering larry g‘s tenuous grip on reality its almost impossible to guess what he really was attempting to say…

            I wonder what a collection of larryisms would read like if they were all collected in one massive tome?

          13. Amazing!

            Not the least bit embarrassed putting that inane nonsense out there for all to see I’m guessing…

            Yup, there is absolutely no way to embarrass the man. He has not an ounce of self respect. One of the most incredible things I’ve ever seen. I wouldn’t believe it if I wasn’t able to see it for myself.

          14. I wonder what a collection of larryisms would read like if they were all collected in one massive tome?

            Hmm. Give it a shot. It might become a best seller and make you rich, or you might start getting death threats for concentrating so much bullshit in one place and causing people to go insane.

          15. you two never got beyond the 5th grade emotionally.. it’s painfully obvious. anger management issues out the wazoo.

          16. or you might start getting death threats for concentrating so much bullshit in one place and causing people to go insane“…

            LMAO!

            Hmmm, you might just have a point there ron h

          17. you two would creep out most normal folk…I doubt they’d let you rent or buy unless it was on acreage!

            But they can’t refuse. Due to previous efforts by those who would force us to conform – efforts of which you approve – private property isn’t really private property. No one can discriminate against a potential renter or buyer for any reason, or massive lawsuits can result.

            If we wish to start infesting your neighborhood we can.

          18. “But they can’t refuse. Due to previous efforts by those who would force us to conform – efforts of which you approve – private property isn’t really private property. No one can discriminate against a potential renter or buyer for any reason, or massive lawsuits can result.

            If we wish to start infesting your neighborhood we can.”

            they can refuse – and they do refuse at the local level for sure.

            People at the local level can easily toss out of office anyone who they think is taxing them too much.

            Happens at the state level too… we just passed further restrictions on the taking of property for public purposes via referenda.

            harder at the Fed level – I admit – but we had a bunch of people voting to throw Obama out of office over his tax and regulation policies.

            this is how our Constitutionally-created system works.

            Most normal people, even if they don’t like taxes or regulations or the “taking” of private property do believe in our system and how it works and they do vote – and it quite often has consequences.

            you boys don’t like this system. In fact, you don’t like ANY system that works like ours – which is all the industrialized countries in the world.

            that’s way different than most normal folks.

          19. you two never got beyond the 5th grade emotionally.. it’s painfully obvious. anger management issues out the wazoo.

            Anger? Do you really believe people are exhibiting anger when they roll on the floor laughing?

          20. Me: ““But they can’t refuse. Due to previous efforts by those who would force us to conform – efforts of which you approve – private property isn’t really private property. No one can discriminate against a potential renter or buyer for any reason, or massive lawsuits can result.

            Me: “If we wish to start infesting your neighborhood we can.”

            You: “they can refuse – and they do refuse at the local level for sure.

            They do?

            You: “People at the local level can easily toss out of office anyone who they think is taxing them too much.

            Say what? WTF… Where did that come from?

            Oh, never mind.

          21. re: ” Me: ““But they can’t refuse.

            You: “they can refuse – and they do refuse at the local level for sure.”

            They do?

            You: “People at the local level can easily toss out of office anyone who they think is taxing them too much.”

            Say what? WTF… Where did that come from?”

            Oh, never mind.”

            most normal folks DO UNDERSTAND it though.

          22. Ron,

            This is in response to an earlier post (4:33 central) before the Larry Show came and made everybody a little more stupid, simply by showing up.

            I understand (and kinda agree with) your position on the lack of a need for centralized rule. However, Zachriel made the point that it’s hard to defend yourself against the inevitable when recourse is only available after harm. It does seem to me that the most practical way to deal with unavoidable negative consequences are to make the actions leading to them illegal. Why should we have to wait to take action when we know the very likely outcome?

            Going back to my previous example, I should have said “shooting at” someone and not shooting them. There is absolutely no harm done to you if I shoot a gun in your direction and miss…although, I do not think that attempted murder charges in a case like that are overstepping ideal centralized power boundaries.

          23. they can refuse – and they do refuse at the local level for sure.

            Look, dumbass, I don’t know how, but you’ve completely lost track of the conversation.

            This original post is about equal pay, and equal rights. You spent a lot of time defending civil rights laws that forbid a private property owners to refuse admission to anyone, for any reason, That includes renting and selling, so no one can refuse to rent or sell to us due to our creepiness.

            You suggested that normal people might not be willing to rent or sell to us because we creep normal people out, but they can’t discriminate against us for being creepy, so we can live wherever we wish.

            So, if juandos and I decide we want to live in a neighbor with normal people, we can. We can even live in your neighborhood, and stand around all day shouting at you to grow a brain, and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.

          24. ” Look, dumbass, I don’t know how, but you’ve completely lost track of the conversation.”

            you mean all those posts between you and Z were not also?

            you are the one who took it elsewhere – you always do.

            virtually every time you comment, you turn it into an anti-govt rant.

          25. Oh, god..I can’t stop laughing at this one…I want to live on the same block as you and Juandos as long as I can be in your Larry shouting party. Oh holy shit that’s funny.

          26. Mike

            This is in response to an earlier post (4:33 central) before the Larry Show came and made everybody a little more stupid, simply by showing up.

            It happens every time, doesn’t it? :)

            I understand (and kinda agree with) your position on the lack of a need for centralized rule. However, Zachriel made the point that it’s hard to defend yourself against the inevitable when recourse is only available after harm.”

            Good question, Mike.

            I don’t believe that people need to wait for inevitable harm before taking action, and if I gave that impression I apologize.

            The key words in your comment above are “inevitable” and “unavoidable. When harm is inevitable, whatever defensive or preventable action can be taken to prevent or reduce that harm is justified. In your shoot-at-me example, you are correct. A central authority would be justified in arresting you and charging you with attempted murder. It might be determined in court that the shot was accidental, very careless, or intended to kill me. That’s all assuming that had managed to get out of range quickly, so I had no opportunity to return fire.

            However, I question whether a central authority is necessary to deal with that situation. People voluntarily joining together for mutual benefit can provide all the structure and services they need without a central government with monopoly power on the use of force and a monopoly on services.

            For example, if you fire in my direction, you should be prepared for return fire. Absent that, you should expect the private security forces I use to show up to arrest you and hold you for appearance in a private court that is widely respected for it’s dispensation of equitable justice by a large number of people, maybe even you.

            No different from what you would expect now, except the security and law services wouldn’t be provided by a central government.

            Z’s example appears to assume that disease is inevitable unless everyone uses the approve methods of waste disposal, and follows one-size-fits-all rules put in place by someone else. In reality, it’s not clear that someone not using approved waste facilities is actually threatening imminent harm, but in the case that they are, whatever means appropriate for neutralizing that threat should be employed.

            It does seem to me that the most practical way to deal with unavoidable negative consequences are to make the actions leading to them illegal. Why should we have to wait to take action when we know the very likely outcome?

            Of course the most “practical” way to deal with negative consequences is to prevent them in the first place. That would include preemptive strikes on anyone who appears to be hostile, outlawing alcohol to prevent the obvious harm that it can cause, speed limits of 20mph to avoid 30k highway deaths per year, forcing people to save for their retirement whether they wish to or not, to avoid having to spend money supporting them later, forcing everyone to buy health insurance for the same reason, forcing non union members to pay for representation they don’t want to prevent so-called free riders, sterilizing people with handicaps to prevent passing on their disability – a common sentiment during the Progressive ere in the early 20th century US,.. the list goes on and on.

            When discussing society and individual rights, practical isn’t a very useful word.

            If you’re interested in learning more about libertarian issues, you might enjoy reading anything by Thomas Wood, Thomas DiLorenzo, or Judge Andrew Napolitano.

            For stronger doses try Murray Rothbard.

          27. Hey Ron,

            Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I do respect your position even if I question it. I do read Libertarian literature but I have not seen anything as…complete…as you have it laid out. I do find Napolitano interesting and he’s a good example of the point I’d like to make here. Since he’s a judge, he’s obviously ok with somebody being selected as a “grand arbiter” (some may call that a centralized government).

            For instance, you said, “That would include preemptive strikes on anyone who appears to be hostile….”. I know you were saying that nothing can be “prevented” without absolute control and I agree, but, and I do think practical is the right word, isn’t it more practical to lay out the penalties before an act is committed and stop them in progress? Isn’t it even more efficient to tackle the guy who draws his gun in public before it ruins everybody’s month, even if he’s just planning to clean it? (In other words; isn’t it better for everybody involved to know that you can’t act without consequence, regardless of reaction or lack thereof.)

            That still may not have been clear.

            Doesn’t there have to eventually be some grand arbiter to settle these matters? I agree with you on much, but I’m not sure I would want to have to hire my own security force…and who’s to say who is right when my security force and yours reach an impasse? Whomever is still alive?
            I’m certain that you aren’t suggesting as much, but isn’t a single arbiter just a step amongst the stairs to centralized power?

        3. Mike

          I do find Napolitano interesting and he’s a good example of the point I’d like to make here. Since he’s a judge, he’s obviously ok with somebody being selected as a “grand arbiter” (some may call that a centralized government).

          Not really. As a judge he worked within the system as we all do, but his belief is that the individual is sovereign, and that they and the states are the final arbiters, using state nullification of Federal legislation, and jury nullification of unjust laws. He is a strict constructionist, believing in the legitimacy of the original constitution as a severe limit on government, that government being an agent created by the several states to facilitate uniform trade among them, provide national defense, a uniform postal system, and some other things best performed by a central agent of the states. He is a strong believer in natural rights, will state that “taxation is theft” and quote Jefferson: “That government is best that governs least”. He would hold that the Confederate states had, and every state has, an absolute right to secede, as it was the states that voluntarily agreed to join together in a union, and could certainly un-join if they wished. He is a severe critic of many Supreme Court decisions and believes – as I do – that the Federal Government has grown far outside it’s Constitutional bounds, from a servant of the states and the people, to their master.

          The truth is, I would be pretty content if the government worked within the confines of the original Constitution and on any question of its intent considered it a limiting document rather than an empowering one.

          For instance, you said, “That would include preemptive strikes on anyone who appears to be hostile….”. I know you were saying that nothing can be “prevented” without absolute control and I agree, but, and I do think practical is the right word, isn’t it more practical to lay out the penalties before an act is committed and stop them in progress?

          Actually creating laws and prescribing penalties just tells you what your punishment will be if you do this bad thing. It doesn’t prevent you from doing it.

          There are now, and almost always have been, laws and codes of conduct prohibiting violent aggression against others. Murder, robbery, rape, assault, kidnapping – all violate a persons rights and laws prohibiting them exist almost universally. Preventing them by force when reasonable cause exists is legitimate.

          Preventing people from acting in ways that *might* conceivably lead to a criminal act is not.

          Isn’t it even more efficient to tackle the guy who draws his gun in public before it ruins everybody’s month, even if he’s just planning to clean it? (In other words; isn’t it better for everybody involved to know that you can’t act without consequence, regardless of reaction or lack thereof.)

          I think most reasonable people already know they can’t draw their gun in public to clean it without risking serious injury to themselves, so yes, that might be a legitimate thing to do, but you might also tackle someone who had drawn their weapon to defend themselves from an armed aggressor, thus insuring that both you and he would likely get shot. It’s probably best to be pretty certain of what you are seeing before taking action.

          That still may not have been clear.

          It seems clear enough.

          Doesn’t there have to eventually be some grand arbiter to settle these matters?

          No.

          I agree with you on much, but I’m not sure I would want to have to hire my own security force…and who’s to say who is right when my security force and yours reach an impasse? Whomever is still alive?

          The reason you hire a security force is to protect you from aggression from others. They act as a defensive force, not an offensive force, because that’s what most people want – just like security forces operate now.

          I’m certain that you aren’t suggesting as much, but isn’t a single arbiter just a step amongst the stairs to centralized power?

          Why is there only one arbiter? Private arbiters can compete for people’s business just like private providers of other services and products do now, on price and quality . Many contracts now include an agreement to use private arbitration for dispute conflict rather that expensive and time consuming resort to the government courts. A monopoly government provider is no guarantee of justice, nor does a government monopoly police force provide protection. Mostly the police show up after an incident to fill out a report.

          It may be difficult to imagine a life without an overbearing central government in charge, but it may help to start asking yourself “What if there was private competition for this government service?”

          What if there was direct private competition for first class mail delivery? What if my local library was a private company that offered memberships? What if private fire departments were hired by insurance companies to minimize their insured losses?

          Do I really need a federal dept. of education? Of energy? Of housing and urban development? The TSA? The Ministry of Silly Walks?

          Consider what government services you actually want and use, and try to imagine how private companies could provide them competitively instead of through government monopoly.

          1. Ron,

            I wasn’t ignoring your last post, I got busy trying to get out of here for a little vacation and just got back in the country. I did read your post while I was waiting to board for the first leg of the trip and I’m glad to have had a few days to think about it.

            I can name several jobs the government does that I believe are probably best done by a public service (state or fed) but it’ll be a matter of opinion and I’m sure you’ll disagree.

            When the incentives to perform a service are unclear, or are too clear (for example: customs, immigration and border enforcement…something I think is necessary but I have no idea how anybody could come up with a legitimate incentive to run it. On the other side, the FDA, as bad as they are, I believe does some helpful things that couldn’t be achieved by a private company, funded by food and drug makers).

            You brought up private firefighters. I can see that, but I can also see a smoldering hole in the ground, three doors down from mine, caused by a simple grease fire but uncontained because of the lack of insurance.
            That may not matter to you, but property values for all the surrounding homes will drop when they feature smoldering hole views and and uninsured neighbors. I live on the border of Houston and the booming NW suburbs where (until recently) many homes had very spotty, volunteer departments….we have private ambulance service, so something like this isn’t totally unprecedented, yet I know of no attempt by the private sector to come in and fill a void.

            On the flip side, the vision that keeps popping in my head are what happens to various “incentives” when the government doesn’t act as restraint… like lawsuit abuse. It’s rare to see free people running wild with little restriction and they way they behave in the courts is really damaging. It seems that government is the only way to fix this particular problem, but, as usual they have many, less important things to foul up :)

  24. Ron H: If I so opposed the sewage system, I can choose to live in a place where digging a hole (or not) is perfectly fine.

    Someone might buy a house in the city, or inherit one, then refuse to conform.

    Ron H: If I choose to live in a city that regulates sewage, that is my choice.

    Sure, and if you live in the United States, a country with laws and regulations, that is your choice.

    Ron H: Your sewage point is just absurd and extreme (proving you don’t get it).

    Actually, it’s typical, common, necessary, and an important development in the growth of modern cities. So your solution, is to leave. Fair enough.

    1. Zachriel,

      First, that was not Ron, that was me.

      Secondly, I think you’re trying really hard to make this more complicated than it is. The same thought process applies: one should be free from government interference unless that person is harming another…when someone chooses to live in a city, the reach of their impact (negative or positive) becomes spitting-distance. It would be virtually impossible to live in close proximity, while not complying with some sanitation guidelines, without harming someone else. That injured party would have every right to pursue recourse.

      Should I assume that your love of law and order has you daydreaming of a time when all property rights and personal decisions are under the direct control of the EPA?

      1. Mike: The same thought process applies: one should be free from government interference unless that person is harming another…when someone chooses to live in a city, the reach of their impact (negative or positive) becomes spitting-distance. It would be virtually impossible to live in close proximity, while not complying with some sanitation guidelines, without harming someone else.

        That is correct. Ron H is arguing from an anarchist point of view. Not sure of your position. In any case, we want to understand how your vision of society would address the problem.

        Mike: That injured party would have every right to pursue recourse.

        So you would wait for an outbreak of disease, then attempt civil recompense?

        1. Zachriel: Not sure of your position.

          Mike (above): I am a Libertarian

          So you accept some limited governmental authority. Then you disagree with Ron H’s anarchism?

          1. Zachriel,

            I must have missed something in the previous posts. If I did, I apologize for butting into the conversation.

            While I’ve noticed his views being more to the ‘complete freedom’ side than mine, I don’t recall Ron coming off as a full-blown anarchist. If that’s the case, then I would have a very different p.o.v….and that might also explain why I think this is a stupid conversation and you don’t. My bad…

    2. The above comments should be attributed to Mike.

      1. Zach,

        I’m sorry to have even gotten into this. You have me arguing for something that I think is just silly. Anybody who has a strong disagreement with toilets is beyond my empathy.

        That said, I don’t believe (in a city setting) we’d get much past the first dump before someone had their rights trampled. However, you’re taking an extreme position that is held by nobody and holding it up as the holy grail…which is how incredibly stupid laws get started.

        Tell ya what, I’ll give you all the toilet guidelines you want if you will agree that the EPA shouldn’t be able to classify my land as a protected wetland when it’s dry 11 months out of the year.

        1. Mike: I’m sorry to have even gotten into this.

          It was a simple question about a simple example. Ron H has said that democracy is tyranny. Our question has to do with whether you think government should be able to promulgate and enforce rules concerning the proper disposal of waste. It’s hardly an academic question. It’s one nearly every locality deals with on an everyday basis.

          1. “Ron H has said that democracy is tyranny.”

            OK, so if, after being lobbied by the Pygmy-sized toilet makers, a majority of Pygmies vote that society (including the minority Samoan) must limit their toilet flushes to 0.10 gallons for environmental reasons, would that be sound democracy or bathroom tyranny?

            This is just as reasonable a discussion.

  25. Mike: While I’ve noticed his views being more to the ‘complete freedom’ side than mine, I don’t recall Ron coming off as a full-blown anarchist. If that’s the case, then I would have a very different p.o.v….and that might also explain why I think this is a stupid conversation and you don’t. My bad…

    We’re cool.

    Mike: OK, so if, after being lobbied by the Pygmy-sized toilet makers, a majority of Pygmies vote that society (including the minority Samoan) must limit their toilet flushes to 0.10 gallons for environmental reasons, would that be sound democracy or bathroom tyranny?

    You never answered our question. Being a libertarian, we might presume you would simply answer, as the vast majority of people would, sure government should regulate the disposal of waste. If so, then you might explain to Ron H why your libertarian view is better than his anarchistic vision.

    As to your question, we’re not an expert on toilet design. Most societies set broad standards for conservation and waste disposal, then let experts reach conclusions about the best design to meet those standards. Not sure if you have a better way.

    1. ” Most societies set broad standards for conservation and waste disposal, then let experts reach conclusions about the best design to meet those standards. Not sure if you have a better way.”

      friendly amendment:

      Most societies through their representative governance process……. get the experts and decide on what kinds of regs they want (or not)….

      and elections DO have CONSEQUENCES for regulations.. just look at gun “regulation”

    2. Z: “As to your question, we’re not an expert on toilet design. Most societies set broad standards for conservation and waste disposal, then let experts reach conclusions about the best design to meet those standards. Not sure if you have a better way.

      That’s fine, but 1.0 gal/flush is not by any stretch a broad standard. It is very specific, and has nothing to do with the basic function of a flush toilet.

      The broad standard and basic function of a flush toilet is, through rapid filling of the bowl with water, to overflow the trap in the drain and siphon water and waste into the sewer pipe leading to elsewhere, while maintaining a barrier to gases between the sewer system and the air in your house. It is such a simple and useful design that it hasn’t changed in any significant way in more than 150 years.

      Responding to consumer preferences, the market has operated at the margin to changed aesthetic and appearance features, and improved flush mechanisms over time, but the basic function remains the same.

      The complaint about low volume toilets is that customer choices have been limited by those-who-know-best in a misguided effort to reduce household use of water – a renewable resource that’s in plentiful supply – by addressing one of the smallest uses of water on the planet.

      Our choices are limited to toilets that clog more frequently, causing us to flush twice to ensure complete removal of waste, resulting in more water usage, not less.

      1. re: ” It is very specific, and has nothing to do with the basic function of a flush toilet.”

        oh but it does because what you are flushing is drinking water – very expensive drinking water and turning it into sewage – and it’s cost effective to have people flush twice if it saves 1/3 the costs of providing drinking water.

        The water/sewer providers could and do – structure their rates according to the amount of water typically used by a 1.0 gal per flush toilet.

        the recommendation/requirement is that to save money on your bill and to save money for everyone else -you can choose to not to conserve if you wish – but as a standard, conservation is the rule.

        Most people are more than happy to save money even if it means sometimes two flushes are needed.

        Most of the modern low-flow toilets I have seen – can do the job 99% of the time with one flush,

        but this is an example of just how foolish your basic beliefs are.

        most people are thankful for water/sewer and want to save money and protect the environment.

  26. Ron H: That’s fine, but 1.0 gal/flush is not by any stretch a broad standard.

    No, it’s a specific regulation promulgated by regulators.

    Ron H: Our choices are limited to toilets that clog more frequently, causing us to flush twice to ensure complete removal of waste, resulting in more water usage, not less.

    One flush for #1,
    Two flushes for #2,
    Saves water.

    1. re: ” One flush for #1,
      Two flushes for #2,
      Saves water”

      TYRANNY!

    2. Z: “One flush for #1,
      Two flushes for #2,
      Saves water.

      To what end?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content