reparations

[russell jones]

even if this is some huge injustice, for a manager of a store ( on private property ) to look out for shop lifting,

 

 

He wasn't simply looking out for shoplifting. He singled out some people because of no other reason than their race. That is an injustice. How would like it if everywhere you went people assumed you were a criminal?

[russell jones]

if it is truely as bad as you say it is (which it isnt by a long shot) why dont these people that are being stereotyped simply straighten the fuck out? what is the deal? if 1 in 3 black males are committing crimes, why do you think someone would pull your toys r us scheme? even if this is some huge injustice, for a manager of a store ( on private property ) to look out for shop lifting, how is this forcing the kids into a life of crime, lack of education and a horrible job? go read some booker t for shits sake.

 

I was just showing an example of how racism still exists out in the open. There are plenty of reasons mentioned in this thread why shit has happened the way it has. I am not denying that every person has a personal responsibility to make the best for themselves, I am just saying that the options for some people are different than the options for others.

 

It is no coincidence that some of the most successful African Americans in this country that came from inner city backgrounds were once hustlers or drug dealers (Jay Z, 50 Cent). From their perspective, being a drug dealer is a job that pays well, awards initiative, and does not require years of education for which an inner city person (whether black, white or Latino) would not be as well prepared for as a surbanite (whether black, white or Latino). If Jay-Z was born into a mostly white suburb, I am sure he would still have been successful, he just would have done it in a different way, through higher education most likely.

 

Remember that Saturday Night Live episode from the early 80's where Eddie Murphy dressed up as a White guy? Perhaps you should dress up as a Black guy for a little while and see what the world is really like.

[angelofdeath]

how do you know that they were singled out for thier race? that is just rediculous. and that is whats wrong with race hustlers. so what your saying is, is that just because the manager was white, and because the kids were black there was some sort of racism involved? i guess there was some racism involved in the black manager having someone keep an eye on 2 white kids huh? seems to me in both cases the managers thought something along the lines of "hey, keep an eye on this group of hooligan looking kids." could that be the case? no, i forgot, its racism only on the part of the white manager against the black kids.

 

thanks for bringing up sports. this is a great area to further drive home my point. there is no racism in these areas, it is simply achievement. blacks can, for the most part, play circles around white dudes. there is no 'racism' about it. its about skills. to say that white coaches are purposefully discriminating against other white players is rediculous. it is in thier best interest to win. they will put in whatever players they think can win. all sports leagues arent out there benching white players to discriminate against them, they are being benched because black dudes can perform better than them. that is the bottom line. this further illustrates my point that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. some people can do things better than others. some people can play sports better than others. some are smarter. the 150 pound dude can jump higher than the 400 pound dude. the 200 pound guy can swing a hammer harder than the 100 pound girl. there is nothing 'racist' about this statement, it is a simple observation of nature.

 

"

He wasn't simply looking out for shoplifting. He singled out some people because of no other reason than their race. That is an injustice. How would like it if everywhere you went people assumed you were a criminal?

"

 

i really dont care. they can do what they want. it isnt going to stop me from working, raising a family, and making my own way. if some dude really has someone watch every black person taht walks in teh store and uses racial slurs and what not, then yeah, the guy is a dick. but, its a free country. dude, can do what he wants so long as you dont initiate force against another person.

[angelofdeath]

"Remember that Saturday Night Live episode from the early 80's where Eddie Murphy dressed up as a White guy? Perhaps you should dress up as a Black guy for a little while and see what the world is really like."

 

i would totally dress up like this guy:

 

[russell jones]

how do you know that they were singled out for thier race? that is just rediculous. and that is whats wrong with race hustlers. so what your saying is, is that just because the manager was white, and because the kids were black there was some sort of racism involved? i guess there was some racism involved in the black manager having someone keep an eye on 2 white kids huh? seems to me in both cases the managers thought something along the lines of "hey, keep an eye on this group of hooligan looking kids." could that be the case? no, i forgot, its racism only on the part of the white manager against the black kids.

 

 

I know he singled them out because of their race because he said so, as I explained in my story. Also, he never, ever told me to watch anyone that was white, but I caught white kids nonetheless. I have caught people of all ages and races stealing, because I don't look at their race, or they way they dress, or their age, I just look at the behavoir. After a while, it is easy to spot. I kept telling people that treating some of your customers like criminals was bad for business, maybe they'll get it some day.

 

I still don't believe you black manager story, unless you can give more details. I never said that your story was not a case of racism by the way, I only said I did not believe it.

 

These arguments would be a lot easier if you would stop assuming things about me and my beliefs. Also, read what is there in my posts, not what you think I should be saying based on what you think you know about me. I will do the same for you. I think I deserve the respect.

[russell jones]

 

i really dont care. they can do what they want. it isnt going to stop me from working, raising a family, and making my own way. if some dude really has someone watch every black person taht walks in teh store and uses racial slurs and what not, then yeah, the guy is a dick. but, its a free country. dude, can do what he wants so long as you dont initiate force against another person.

 

 

I didn't say it would stop anyone from doing those things. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm just saying that it is one injustice among many. The point of the story was to show that racism still exists, contrary to what you believe. That was the only point of the story.

 

If a store owner is constantly hassling patrons based on race, I would say that they are initiating force against those people.

[angelofdeath]

"unless you can give more details"

 

there is not much to give. an ex girlfriend of mine worked in a mall chain store and the manager ( african american ) told her to keep an eye on 2 white kids that were in the store. racism works both ways. any way you swing it, it should be denounced. equality before the law is one thing. it is essential to liberty. equality of result is a whole different animal and should be denounced if you are concerned about liberty, because it will trample some peoples liberty in the name of 'doing good' for another group.

[angelofdeath]

I didn't say it would stop anyone from doing those things. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm just saying that it is one injustice among many. The point of the story was to show that racism still exists, contrary to what you believe. That was the only point of the story.

 

If a store owner is constantly hassling patrons based on race, I would say that they are initiating force against those people.

 

i know racism still exists, but it is not holding anyone back. as i said before it is not keeping anyone from higher achievement. only the race hustlers believe so. racism is stupid, but we live in a free society. you cannot simply ban speech (wait, they did, hate speech, guess they didnt read the first amendment) or regulate ones thoughts. for instance nazi's should be able to goosestep, sing songs and assemble, but they cant kill anyone or beat them up. same with farrakans crowd.

 

the kids came into the store, on thier own intiative. they were not forced onto someone elses private property. they were invited to come in the store on the basis of engaging in a mutual exchange. the store owner can do what he wants. if he wants to follow kids around, for whatever reason, he can and should be able to. he is not initiating FORCE against anyone. besides, they are on his property. initiating force on someone is when you see 3 black kids enter the store and you grab a baseball bat and beat the shit out of them for no reason at all, not for self defense, not to reclaim stolen property. just because. that is initiating force. it is not coercion to monitor someone on your property.

[russell jones]

thanks for bringing up sports. this is a great area to further drive home my point. there is no racism in these areas, it is simply achievement. blacks can, for the most part, play circles around white dudes. there is no 'racism' about it. its about skills. to say that white coaches are purposefully discriminating against other white players is rediculous. it is in thier best interest to win. they will put in whatever players they think can win. all sports leagues arent out there benching white players to discriminate against them, they are being benched because black dudes can perform better than them. that is the bottom line. this further illustrates my point that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. some people can do things better than others. some people can play sports better than others. some are smarter. the 150 pound dude can jump higher than the 400 pound dude. the 200 pound guy can swing a hammer harder than the 100 pound girl. there is nothing 'racist' about this statement, it is a simple observation of nature.

 

White players were discriminated against. Of course managers and coaches want to win, but racism and stereotypes have a way of making people see or not see things as they really are. There are plenty of very quick white players, and there probably always has been, but it took a few breakthrough players to break down the stereotypes and allow coaches to see them for what they really were. A decade ago, if a coach got a videotape of a white kid playing defensive back, they would probably not even watch it, because the assumption was that white players were not fast enough. Now shit has changed.

 

I challenge the notion that people of African descent are just faster or can jump higher, because if that were the case, all the top sprinters in the Olympics would be from Africa, not from America, Canada and Jamaica as is the case. As you may or may not know, every black person in America who is not a recent immigrant is part white. Almost everyone that is black in Africa has no white descent. So if blacks are superior at athletics, why aren't Africans winning all the sprinting and jumping events in the Olympics? Why are so many top high jumpers white, especially among women athletes? You may have noticed that one of the top 200 sprinters in the last Olympics from the US was white.

 

 

As far as egalitarianism being a revolt against nature, until farming came about in about 10000 BCE, egalitarianism was pretty much the rule in most societies. Seems pretty natural to me. Also, egalitarianism does not mean one does not recognize that someone has differences in abilitily, it only seeks to remove differences in opportunity. Webster's defines egalitarianism as "a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges." Rights and privileges, not abilities.

[angelofdeath]

"I challenge the notion that people of African descent are just faster or can jump higher, because if that were the case, all the top sprinters in the Olympics would be from Africa, not from America, Canada and Jamaica as is the case. As you may or may not know, every black person in America who is not a recent immigrant is part white. Almost everyone that is black in Africa has no white descent. So if blacks are superior at athletics, why aren't Africans winning all the sprinting and jumping events in the Olympics? Why are so many top high jumpers white, especially among women athletes? You may have noticed that one of the top 200 sprinters in the last Olympics from the US was white. "

 

i did mean to imply that ONLY black players can play. this is not the case. i was just saying that sports teams are in it to win. if that means that the team is 75% black and 25% white, so be it.

you cannot stereotype and make a blanket statement, but when someone says something like..." for the most part, white men cant jump! " there is some truth in it.

 

i notice you didnt touch on the fat vs skinny arguments.

 

 

"As far as egalitarianism being a revolt against nature, until farming came about in about 10000 BCE, egalitarianism was pretty much the rule in most societies. Seems pretty natural to me. Also, egalitarianism does not mean one does not recognize that someone has differences in abilitily, it only seeks to remove differences in opportunity. Webster's defines egalitarianism as "a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges." Rights and privileges, not abilities."

 

notices the ESPECIALLY in the websters definition. what the proponents of egalitarianism are pushing for is total socialization of everything in teh name of equality. for instance the 'harvard crits' (law teachers) have suggested that they are to authoritarian and think that they should change places with the janitors. they are trying to say that janitors can teach law classes. if this were the case, then they would of been law teachers!

i also disagree with you about egalitarianism ruling the day. im quite sure jim bob caveman might of been able to out hunt, out lift, or out woman-please joe bob caveman.

 

so you really believe in total equality even equality of result? so, a toilet bowl scrubber should make more than or the same amount of money and priviledges.

[russell jones]

"unless you can give more details"

 

there is not much to give. an ex girlfriend of mine worked in a mall chain store and the manager ( african american ) told her to keep an eye on 2 white kids that were in the store. racism works both ways. any way you swing it, it should be denounced. equality before the law is one thing. it is essential to liberty. equality of result is a whole different animal and should be denounced if you are concerned about liberty, because it will trample some peoples liberty in the name of 'doing good' for another group.

 

Did the manager say why? My manager made it clear that race was the reason. Maybe the manager at your ex's store knew the kids, or had caught them before. I have had managers tell me to watch black patrons before because they were acting suspicious, or because they had caught them before, and I did not accuse them of racism. I only accused the manager in the story because he had no other good reason. I had also heard him talk about things involving race in that "wink, wink" way that some white people do when they assume that you are on their side.

 

 

Perhaps you could give an example of what you are talking about in your last sentence to further illustrate your point. I'm not getting the idea from your Black manager, white patron story. It can be a hypothetical example.

[russell jones]

i notice you didnt touch on the fat vs skinny arguments.

 

There was no particular reason that I didn't touch it, I didn't really think it related to the rest of your arguement very well though. I tend to go to your strongest points first.

[russell jones]

i also disagree with you about egalitarianism ruling the day. im quite sure jim bob caveman might of been able to out hunt, out lift, or out woman-please joe bob caveman.

 

so you really believe in total equality even equality of result? so, a toilet bowl scrubber should make more than or the same amount of money and priviledges.

 

Each caveman had the same opportunity because there was no class, unlike now. Certainly being a better hunter or gatherer would grant one more success in life. You would love it, because then a person's success was truly based on their ability! When farming came in, social stratification came with it.

 

To answer your second question in a word, no. I believe in equality of opportunity, not result. The results are going to be different for everyone, I just believe in giving everyone the same opportunities. They requires some difficult decisions in a complex society, I am not sure if the right answer has been found anywhere yet, I am still looking. I can see the value in some libertarian thought and in some of the tenets of socialism. I can't really pin myself down, because I do not know enough answers. I wish we had a super computer that could simulate how a society reacts to certain laws and initiatives, then maybe we could be better informed on the right course of action. In other words, I guess you could describe my view as ethical pragmatist. I believe certain ethical issues are untouchable, as you do, but I would like to see some bending and compromise on others.

[angelofdeath]

"Perhaps you could give an example of what you are talking about in your last sentence to further illustrate your point. I'm not getting the idea from your Black manager, white patron story. It can be a hypothetical example."

 

the ultimate goal of our society, for atleast a century or so, was liberty.

what is meant by trampling liberty to give it to others is programs like affirmative action, busing, racial quotas, hate crimes laws, etc. equality of result proponents usually say things like... "well, we need to lower these standards for this one group of people, to fight discrimination, but the others will have normal standards." or "well, we have to hire X number of this group of people to satisfy our equal opportunity standards, even though, this other guy might be better qualified for the job." so what you are doing is trampling the more qualified guys liberty, by giving the job to someone else in the name of 'equal results' all sponsored by our government.

 

im kind of bad at explaining this, but there are few texts to really check out, if you want to see this view point. google search walter williams or thomas sowells articles, and see what they have to say, or better yet, pick up a copy of thomas sowell's book "civil rights, rhetoric or reality." better yet, an overall treatise on the free society is freidrich hayek's "constitution of liberty." in it is a great chapter on equality before the law (justified) and force equality of result. he explains it really good.

[angelofdeath]

"The results are going to be different for everyone, I just believe in giving everyone the same opportunities."

 

awesome. equality before the law is great. the minute people start trying to discriminate against other people to make those who are 'discriminated' upon better off, then we are not 'free' any more. we are being coerced.

[russell jones]

I have another story that says something about liberty, a term that you are found of using.

 

I took Russian history as an undergraduate. My proff was born in Russia in the late 40's under Stalin, and came to America in the 70's. He made a good point about the difference between liberty in America, which he loves, compared to liberty in the USSR.

 

In America, we are allowed to say anything we want about politicians and other public figures with basically no fear of retribution. It is free speech and guaranteed by the first ammendment. However, when someone gets a job in America, they may have to sign a contract that states that cannot disparage the company while on the clock or off. So you may say, get another job, but what if all the jobs in your field require this contract? What if unemployment is high and your possiblility of getting another job was low? This puts a real damper on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Now is the USSR, you could be imprisoned, or worse for speaking out against government officials, but workers in the USSR had total freedom to speak out against their bosses at their jobs. The communist party encouraged worker newspapers, which according to my teacher, were forums for the workers to rant against the bosses at all levels. Your boss could not fire you for exercising your free speech against them!

 

One person's liberty is another's prison and vice a versa.

 

Just as an aside, my high school European history teacher, whose views were very similar to yours, (he once described himself as being a 100 yards to the right of Ronald Reagan, yet he had long hair and a long beard) and who I learned a lot from, said that in some ways, countries in the communist block were more free than America. He had spent time in Yugoslavia, and was talking to a store owner, and found that they had fewer regulations and taxes to deal with than store owners he knew in America. On top of that, corruption was so rampant, that it actually had the effect of making it easier for people to slip under the radar than America. He generally thought that Yugoslavians had less government involvement in their lives than Americans.

[russell jones]

 

im kind of bad at explaining this, but there are few texts to really check out, if you want to see this view point. google search walter williams or thomas sowells articles, and see what they have to say, or better yet, pick up a copy of thomas sowell's book "civil rights, rhetoric or reality." better yet, an overall treatise on the free society is freidrich hayek's "constitution of liberty." in it is a great chapter on equality before the law (justified) and force equality of result. he explains it really good.

 

I'm reading William's Economics for the Citizen now. He makes a very good point in the beginning.

 

"At the end of the previous article, you were left with this question: Which is the best method of resolving conflict over what's produced, how and when it's produced, and who's going to get it? Among the methods for doing so were the market mechanism, government fiat, gifts or violence. The answer is that economic theory can't answer normative questions.

 

Normative questions deal with what is better or worse. No theory can answer normative questions. Try asking a physics teacher which is the better or worse state: a solid, gas, liquid or plasma state. He'll probably look at you as if you're crazy. On the other hand, if you ask your physics teacher which is the cheapest state for pounding a nail into a board, he'd probably answer that the solid state is. It's the same with economic theory, as opposed to economists. That is, if you asked most economists which method of conflict resolution produces the greater overall wealth, they'd probably answer that the market mechanism does."

 

I don't necessarily agree with his "greater overall wealth" statement, but I believe he is right in saying that what is best is not a question that economics can answer. Important thing to remember in this argument.

[Guest spectr]

Sorry, what I meant is that white managers in retail stores always watch black kids rather than white kids , because they think the black kids are the ones who steal.

 

man that is such a weak excuse.. sorry, Kids are watched in retail stores, why because they fucking steal.. white, black, latin, etc.. kids steal so they are watched.. yeah maybe more african american kids are watched then white kids, I am willing to completely willing to believe that. but you are impling that they don't watch white kids since they think they don't steal..

[soulkillers]

i kinda have to agree^^^^

i dont think it is based on race its based on outwardly apperance. thy way they walk dress speak etc. if u had 2 white boys dressed all gangsta they would be watched more then two black kids in school uniforms or non thuged out gear. so its more of a sterotypical thug look not skin tone. sad thing is alot of good black kids and mexicans kids dress thuged out and fall under the sterotype.

[angelofdeath]

"In America, we are allowed to say anything we want about politicians and other public figures with basically no fear of retribution. It is free speech and guaranteed by the first ammendment. However, when someone gets a job in America, they may have to sign a contract that states that cannot disparage the company while on the clock or off. So you may say, get another job, but what if all the jobs in your field require this contract? What if unemployment is high and your possiblility of getting another job was low? This puts a real damper on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Now is the USSR, you could be imprisoned, or worse for speaking out against government officials, but workers in the USSR had total freedom to speak out against their bosses at their jobs. The communist party encouraged worker newspapers, which according to my teacher, were forums for the workers to rant against the bosses at all levels. Your boss could not fire you for exercising your free speech against them! "

 

the constitution is not a end all guarantee of free speech. it simply says "congress shall make no law..."

 

this is a time where you would want the government to intervene on the companies iberty to supposedly 'save' your own. right? when in fact, in a free market, you are voluntarily going to work/signing a contract to work for a company. the exchange in beneficial to both parties.

 

the first amendment is not unlimited and universal. for instance, a group of kkk members cannot leaflet on your front yard. if a kkk member enters your house to leaflet, assemble and speak, i can kick him the fuck out, and i would be 'violating his free speech" right? no. he is invading my property.

 

now, this sounds simple, but how come the same isnt true with mall owners? how come the KKK can leaflet legally at a mall? its private property. they have taken away the mall owners property rights.

 

another example... im was in the NRA. i let my membership lapse this year. they were trying to pass a law that made it legal for employees to carry guns reguardless of policy at work. it is not up to the State what to do in this matter, it is up to the employer. it is private property and he has the right to forbid carry or allow carry of weapons on his property. however, most would think this is purely a violation of the second amendment. it is not. your property is your castle. trampling liberty to give someone else 'liberty.' when in fact no one is forcing you to be there in the first place.

 

this ties to your employee thing. the employer has the right to make whatever rules he wants. the employee doesnt have to agree with them, he can choose to work some where else. in a free market, if all employers required a suppressed speech policy, and no one wanted to sign the contract, i can assure you the policy would be short lived. thats the thing with business you can simply bring it to its knees by refusing to buy its service or work for them. try that with a government.

 

you are also correct in some foreign countries having more liberty. the CATO institute for example always has a list of which countries are the 'freest.'

usually the revolve around the countries with the least economic regulation. most libertarians believe that you cannot have freedom without first having economic freedom.

[russell jones]

"In America, we are allowed to say anything we want about politicians and other public figures with basically no fear of retribution. It is free speech and guaranteed by the first ammendment. However, when someone gets a job in America, they may have to sign a contract that states that cannot disparage the company while on the clock or off. So you may say, get another job, but what if all the jobs in your field require this contract? What if unemployment is high and your possiblility of getting another job was low? This puts a real damper on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Now is the USSR, you could be imprisoned, or worse for speaking out against government officials, but workers in the USSR had total freedom to speak out against their bosses at their jobs. The communist party encouraged worker newspapers, which according to my teacher, were forums for the workers to rant against the bosses at all levels. Your boss could not fire you for exercising your free speech against them! "

 

the constitution is not a end all guarantee of free speech. it simply says "congress shall make no law..."

 

this is a time where you would want the government to intervene on the companies iberty to supposedly 'save' your own. right? when in fact, in a free market, you are voluntarily going to work/signing a contract to work for a company. the exchange in beneficial to both parties.

 

the first amendment is not unlimited and universal. for instance, a group of kkk members cannot leaflet on your front yard. if a kkk member enters your house to leaflet, assemble and speak, i can kick him the fuck out, and i would be 'violating his free speech" right? no. he is invading my property.

 

now, this sounds simple, but how come the same isnt true with mall owners? how come the KKK can leaflet legally at a mall? its private property. they have taken away the mall owners property rights.

 

another example... im was in the NRA. i let my membership lapse this year. they were trying to pass a law that made it legal for employees to carry guns reguardless of policy at work. it is not up to the State what to do in this matter, it is up to the employer. it is private property and he has the right to forbid carry or allow carry of weapons on his property. however, most would think this is purely a violation of the second amendment. it is not. your property is your castle. trampling liberty to give someone else 'liberty.' when in fact no one is forcing you to be there in the first place.

 

this ties to your employee thing. the employer has the right to make whatever rules he wants. the employee doesnt have to agree with them, he can choose to work some where else. in a free market, if all employers required a suppressed speech policy, and no one wanted to sign the contract, i can assure you the policy would be short lived. thats the thing with business you can simply bring it to its knees by refusing to buy its service or work for them. try that with a government.

.

 

I was talking about liberty, not the first ammendment.

 

Also, non-disparagement contracts are pretty much universal in many fields. Yet people are still stuck with them. Sure you have the right to get another job, but as I said before, what if all the jobs in your field require those contracts? Then you have no job. You are just as stuck with the situation as you are with the government, so I do not see how this is not limiting the liberty of individuals. Also, the contracts not only limit your speech at work, but away from work too. How can they claim the right to control what you do when you are not on their property?

 

 

If a job is required to live in America, and all the jobs available to you require sign a contract to not speak out against the company, then it is either accept it, or be poor. That is hardly a choice, and hardly different than being threatened with jail by the government.

 

As far as the mall example, my front yard and the mall are totally different places. Although the mall is private property, it has replaced the public square, which the founders definitely intended as a place for free speech. The way you make it sound, people just have to buy property and they can basically have their own country with their own personal laws as they see fit within that property. That is not the case. For instance, you cannot own a restaurant and then paint the walls with lead based paint, or run a business where the employees are exposed to toxic chemicals without their knowledge.

 

Take a more extreme example, and I will use hyperbole for the sake of argument. Say there is an employer who provides jobs for most of the people in a small town. Now say that the employer decides that all of the women who work for him must do so in the nude or they will be fired. So, basically, since the employer can do whatever he wants, since it is his private property, the employees can either quit, and move, or just be poor. Since the company is the big employer in town, if all the women quit, they would not be able to find a job in town, so they would have to leave. Then what if they experience the same thing in the next town? How are they supposed to get the money to leave town and start over, work in the nude until they are ready? What if they have a family?

 

I don't want to assume, but I am guessing that you also think that it is completely up to the employer to decide whether or not to discriminate based on race. And I am not talking about affirmitive action or anything like that. I am talking about not hiring an equally qualified person because of their race.

[russell jones]

man that is such a weak excuse.. sorry, Kids are watched in retail stores, why because they fucking steal.. white, black, latin, etc.. kids steal so they are watched.. yeah maybe more african american kids are watched then white kids, I am willing to completely willing to believe that. but you are impling that they don't watch white kids since they think they don't steal..

 

not an excuse, just the way I see it based on my own personal observations. But I am sure if you dig you could find plenty of studies to verify this. Kids do steal, but like you said, managers are more likely to watch black kids.

 

I am not implying that they do not think that white kids steal, but they obviously don't concentrate on it as much as black kids, since, as I have told you before, that white manager never told me to watch white kids. I don't know what his reasons were for doing that.

[russell jones]

i kinda have to agree^^^^

i dont think it is based on race its based on outwardly apperance. thy way they walk dress speak etc. if u had 2 white boys dressed all gangsta they would be watched more then two black kids in school uniforms or non thuged out gear. so its more of a sterotypical thug look not skin tone. sad thing is alot of good black kids and mexicans kids dress thuged out and fall under the sterotype.

 

I don't agree. My idiotic manager had me watch black kids who were dressed up in Islamic gear, white skull cap and white one piece outfit. Those kids wouldn't steal in a million years, it's just too against their values. Besides, their parents would punish them worse than the law could.

 

The way someone dresses definitely has an effect but not always. Many studies have been done with cab drivers in New York as far as who they pick up. They would not pick up black men regardless of whether they were wearing a tie and a suit or baggy pants.

 

 

And like I said before, my manager never told me to watch white kids, and we had plenty of so-called thugged out white kids come in. Not saying this applies to everyone, just that manager in that situation.

[soulkillers]

I don't agree. My idiotic manager had me watch black kids who were dressed up in Islamic gear, white skull cap and white one piece outfit. Those kids wouldn't steal in a million years, it's just too against their values. Besides, their parents would punish them worse than the law could.

 

The way someone dresses definitely has an effect but not always. Many studies have been done with cab drivers in New York as far as who they pick up. They would not pick up black men regardless of whether they were wearing a tie and a suit or baggy pants.

 

 

And like I said before, my manager never told me to watch white kids, and we had plenty of so-called thugged out white kids come in. Not saying this applies to everyone, just that manager in that situation.

then that is your boss own racist fellings not a retail problem. if the were dressed in islamic dress that ask the question were they watched because they were blaclk or muslium?

[russell jones]

then that is your boss own racist fellings not a retail problem. if the were dressed in islamic dress that ask the question were they watched because they were blaclk or muslium?

 

 

It is pretty prevalent throughout retail jobs, I've heard plenty of stories from others.

 

 

I don't think my manager knew that the kids I were talking about were Muslim, he was pretty clueless.

[angelofdeath]

I was talking about liberty, not the first ammendment.

 

you invoked the first amendment so i touched on it.

 

Also, non-disparagement contracts are pretty much universal in many fields. Yet people are still stuck with them. Sure you have the right to get another job, but as I said before, what if all the jobs in your field require those contracts? Then you have no job. You are just as stuck with the situation as you are with the government, so I do not see how this is not limiting the liberty of individuals. Also, the contracts not only limit your speech at work, but away from work too. How can they claim the right to control what you do when you are not on their property?

 

it is immoral and unjust to violate someones life liberty or property/use coercion against them. as i said before, if every job requires some contract that no one likes, those contracts wont be around for long. the free market exchange of labor/wages, etc, is a mutually beneficial exchange, otherwise no one would engage in them. the person is not being FORCED to work under a contract, if he signs it, he is agreeing to the terms. if not, he can find another job, or perhaps offer his services independently, start his own business, etc. it is unjust to coerce someone because you cannot get your desired outcome, for whatever reason, unless in a purely defensive nature. so you cant go out and knock someone out for no reason, or you cant make someone change thier hiring qualifications when you are partaking in a voluntary exchange.

 

 

"If a job is required to live in America, and all the jobs available to you require sign a contract to not speak out against the company, then it is either accept it, or be poor. That is hardly a choice, and hardly different than being threatened with jail by the government. "

 

wrong on several reasons. for one, a job is not required in america. you do not need a job to survive. many people dont have jobs. however in this weird instance where you are trying to justify state intervention into the worlds private affairs, im sure local governments would step in, in even the most libertarian of worlds. you see the idea is, every community should govern themselves. keep intervention at the lowest possible level. better county than state, better state than federal, because everyone's right to self government cannot come true from a centralized state.

 

"As far as the mall example, my front yard and the mall are totally different places. Although the mall is private property, it has replaced the public square, which the founders definitely intended as a place for free speech. The way you make it sound, people just have to buy property and they can basically have their own country with their own personal laws as they see fit within that property. That is not the case. For instance, you cannot own a restaurant and then paint the walls with lead based paint, or run a business where the employees are exposed to toxic chemicals without their knowledge."

 

in a free society, property rights would be absolute. it is unjust to treat a mall as public property, when it is entirely private. the owner of a mall should be able to paint his whole building with lead and toxic chemicals all day long. zoning, regulations and the like is theft. however, even in a libertarian oriented society, local governments would more than likely act on behalf of the people if they wanted to ban lead paint for instance.

 

the market has a grand scheme of taking care of this without state intervention. for instance, if a popular bar is covered in lead paint chips, im sure bar patrons would much rather go to a lead free painted bar. it is not a matter of 'public' health, because patrons are VOLUNTARILY entering the owners property to engage in a mutual beneficial exchange.

 

 

 

Take a more extreme example, and I will use hyperbole for the sake of argument. Say there is an employer who provides jobs for most of the people in a small town. Now say that the employer decides that all of the women who work for him must do so in the nude or they will be fired. So, basically, since the employer can do whatever he wants, since it is his private property, the employees can either quit, and move, or just be poor. Since the company is the big employer in town, if all the women quit, they would not be able to find a job in town, so they would have to leave. Then what if they experience the same thing in the next town? How are they supposed to get the money to leave town and start over, work in the nude until they are ready? What if they have a family?

 

there is no collective good, thier is only individuals. a property owner can do what he wants, when he wants. as you said before, he should be able to have his own little country, as long as he doesnt coerce anyone or violate thier life liberty or property. if a company owner had a requirement that every woman dress nude, im sure his company would go belly up in no time from lack of workers. it is not the business owners business to worry about whether employees have money to move to another town because they dont like it where they are. property rights must be absolute, in a free society. any other stance is a stance in defense of legalized theft.

 

 

I don't want to assume, but I am guessing that you also think that it is completely up to the employer to decide whether or not to discriminate based on race. And I am not talking about affirmitive action or anything like that. I am talking about not hiring an equally qualified person because of their race.

 

no government should step in to dictate ANY reason why an employee should or should not be hired. for instance, if you dont want to allow a neo nazi in your place of business, you should be able to not hire him. if a black man, doesnt want to hire a white person for whatever reason, it should be his decision and his alone. if a white person doesnt want to hire an asian person, that is between the 2 parties in question, not the governments. they should have no say in these affairs. perhaps a shop owner has a perfectly good reason not to hire a black man. say, half the shop are good workers, but belong to the KKK. this would most likely cause a conflict.

 

my whole problem is, you cant call for state intervention in all matters where a perceived injustice is taking place and say you are doing in the name of 'freedom,' 'liberty,' or a 'free society.'

[russell jones]

wrong on several reasons. for one, a job is not required in america. you do not need a job to survive. many people dont have jobs.

 

How exactly does one survive without a job? I am confused, are you talking about homeless people or something? That is hardly living. I do not think you could find many people to agree with you on this statement.

[russell jones]

 

no government should step in to dictate ANY reason why an employee should or should not be hired. for instance, if you dont want to allow a neo nazi in your place of business, you should be able to not hire him. if a black man, doesnt want to hire a white person for whatever reason, it should be his decision and his alone. if a white person doesnt want to hire an asian person, that is between the 2 parties in question, not the governments. they should have no say in these affairs. perhaps a shop owner has a perfectly good reason not to hire a black man. say, half the shop are good workers, but belong to the KKK. this would most likely cause a conflict.

 

Although, as you say, this is consistent with your philosophy, which is why I asked, I do not think that you could find many people who do not think that discriminatory hiring practices are an injustice.

[russell jones]

you invoked the first amendment so i touched on it.

 

it is immoral and unjust to violate someones life liberty or property/use coercion against them. as i said before, if every job requires some contract that no one likes, those contracts wont be around for long. the free market exchange of labor/wages, etc, is a mutually beneficial exchange, otherwise no one would engage in them. the person is not being FORCED to work under a contract, if he signs it, he is agreeing to the terms. if not, he can find another job, or perhaps offer his services independently, start his own business, etc. it is unjust to coerce someone because you cannot get your desired outcome, for whatever reason, unless in a purely defensive nature. so you cant go out and knock someone out for no reason, or you cant make someone change thier hiring qualifications when you are partaking in a voluntary exchange.

 

But in fact the contracts are there and many, many people don't like them, but there is nothing they can do about it. The free market has done nothing to purge this injustice. No one is being forced at gun point, no. But not being able to pursue a career is a limit on your liberty plain and simple. Not everyone can start their own business.

 

Businesses are coercing people using these contracts because they know that in some fields employment is scarce so they can do basically whatever they want. If you hold the purse strings, you hold their life in your hands. This is just as coercive as using violence. Like I said before, the declaration of independence says life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't say liberty for property and business owners to do whatever they want and screw everybody else.

[russell jones]

in a free society, property rights would be absolute. it is unjust to treat a mall as public property, when it is entirely private. the owner of a mall should be able to paint his whole building with lead and toxic chemicals all day long. zoning, regulations and the like is theft. however, even in a libertarian oriented society, local governments would more than likely act on behalf of the people if they wanted to ban lead paint for instance.

 

I am confused, why is it theft if the federal government regulates toxic chemicals but not when the local government does it?

 

the market has a grand scheme of taking care of this without state intervention. for instance, if a popular bar is covered in lead paint chips, im sure bar patrons would much rather go to a lead free painted bar. it is not a matter of 'public' health, because patrons are VOLUNTARILY entering the owners property to engage in a mutual beneficial exchange.

 

Except that in your free society the patrons have no way of knowing that lead based paint was used in the building, because there is no regulation therefore no reason for the bar owner to tell anyone anything at all. The patrons would only know that lead based paint was used when they realize that their kids are learning disabled or having other health problems.

 

 

 

 

 

there is no collective good, thier is only individuals. a property owner can do what he wants, when he wants. as you said before, he should be able to have his own little country, as long as he doesnt coerce anyone or violate thier life liberty or property. if a company owner had a requirement that every woman dress nude, im sure his company would go belly up in no time from lack of workers. it is not the business owners business to worry about whether employees have money to move to another town because they dont like it where they are. property rights must be absolute, in a free society. any other stance is a stance in defense of legalized theft.

 

 

 

 

no government should step in to dictate ANY reason why an employee should or should not be hired. for instance, if you dont want to allow a neo nazi in your place of business, you should be able to not hire him. if a black man, doesnt want to hire a white person for whatever reason, it should be his decision and his alone. if a white person doesnt want to hire an asian person, that is between the 2 parties in question, not the governments. they should have no say in these affairs. perhaps a shop owner has a perfectly good reason not to hire a black man. say, half the shop are good workers, but belong to the KKK. this would most likely cause a conflict.

 

my whole problem is, you cant call for state intervention in all matters where a perceived injustice is taking place and say you are doing in the name of 'freedom,' 'liberty,' or a 'free society.'