“It’s easy to be conspicuously compassionate if others are being forced to pay the cost”
I admit it. I discriminate. I am kind and respectful to the elderly; I am helpful to the handicapped and I open doors for women.
When I go into a Japanese restaurant, I am a racist. I don’t want to see a white guy or a black guy or a Latino guy, or even a Korean guy making my sushi. Funny that. When I go into a Korean restaurant I certainly don’t want to see a Japanese making the food either (ask any Koreans you know if they agree with me).
And speaking of Seoul food, ditto goes for, say a German or Italian, or down-south real Soul food restaurant; and nope, I don’t want to see a guy named Yamazaki making the pork chops and gravy with collard greens.
…..But in considering this freedom to do one’s own thing, we must consider exactly what we are to be free from.
Are we to be free from coercion by others – from violent interference with our bodies and our property? Are we to be free from being physically restrained or molested when we try to “do our own thing”? Or are we to be free from the adverse consequences of our actions? Even from adverse judgments by others?This is an important question, because these things are ultimately incompatible. If a person is to be free from the adverse judgments of others, then this means that each of those others must be forced to think and act against their own conscience – they must be forced to refrain from holding or expressing views that would upset those who are merely “doing their own thing.” But what if those others desire to follow their conscience – what if that is their “doing their own thing”? Similarly, if a person is to be free from the adverse consequences of their own actions, then this means that others must be forced to shield them from these consequences – they must be forced to contribute their resources and services to those who are “doing their own thing.” But what if those others desire to keep their own property and use it for themselves and their loved ones – what if that is them “doing their own thing”? Who’s “own thing” is to prevail?For the advocates of redistributive policies and antidiscrimination policies the answer is clear: the freedom to “do your own thing” entitles a person to the resources to support them, and immunity from criticism for their chosen lifestyle – it is just their own thing after all!
Second, in our private lives, we all discriminate against people. It may be against ugly people, dumb people, people we don’t know very long, people that have bad breath, obnoxious people, rude people, interventionists, Keynesians etc.
In a world of non-discrimination, you would just show up at a restaurant and be seated with the person that came in just before you. Hey, everybody is equal, right?
President Obama has not been particularly successful in fostering the creation of jobs. But he thinks he has found a way to pry open doors in the workplace for many of the unemployed, especially those who have been out of work for a long time.
Under the proposal, it would be “an unlawful employment practice” if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person “because of the individual’s status as unemployed.”
Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just like when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
White House officials see discrimination against the unemployed as a serious problem. In a radio interview last month, Mr. Obama said such discrimination made “absolutely no sense,” especially at a time when many people, through no fault of their own, had been laid off.
Mr. Obama’s proposal would also prohibit employment agencies and Web sites from carrying advertisements for job openings that exclude people who are unemployed. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has received reports of such advertisements but does not have data to show how common they are.
Republicans and some employers criticized the White House proposal. They said that discrimination was not common and that the proposed remedy could expose employers to a barrage of lawsuits.
“We do not see a need for it,” said Michael J. Eastman, executive director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Already, Mr. Eastman said, the Civil Rights Act outlaws employment practices that have “a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin,”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com …
The U.S. Justice Department sued Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Thursday, saying the Arizona lawman refused for more than a year to turn over records in an investigation into allegations his department discriminates against Hispanics.
The lawsuit calls Arpaio and his office’s defiance “unprecedented,” and said the federal government has been trying since March 2009 to get officials to comply with its probe of alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and having English-only policies in his jails that discriminate against people with limited English skills.
Arpaio had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents it first asked for 15 months ago.