Nine French police injured as student protests intensify (AFP)

[Famine]

There are still a lot of racists out there, the internet shows us that. Giving a store's owner the right to refuse serving people of other races would bring segregation back. The law rightfully condemns racism, if he doesn't agree with it he shouldn't open a business.

"Giving"? He HAS that right already. He is not forced by any law to give his possessions to anyone who has the money for them.

You can fire anyone for any reason (not racism though), but you can't fire anyone for no reason.

And this is the point. Why not? If someone can quit a job and not give a reason for it, why must an employer be forced to give a reason for firing someone. It makes no sense, because it is inconsistent.

 

[livemusic]

Not here. If someone refuses to sell something to a black person because of his colour that is considered racism, and racism is a crime here.

 

[Dave A]

You can fire anyone for any reason.

No, you can't. I can't fire someone because they smell, I can't fire somone because I just don't like their personality, I can't fire someone because they screwed my mate over out of work, I can't fire someone because their handwriting isn't as good as I'd like it to be. At the end of the day, if I hire someone and start paying them my money, I shouldn't even need a reason beyond, I just don't want to pay them any more. This isn't a debate abut what the law is, it's what the law should be.

 

[Famine]

Not here. If someone refuses to sell something to a black person because of his colour that is considered racism, and racism is a crime here.

You're kind of stuck in a racism rut here...

I said that no-one is beholden to give their possessions to anyone who stumps up the right price for it. They can refuse for any reason. My car is worth £5,000. I do not HAVE to sell it to someone who gives me £5,000 for it if I don't want to. A publican can refuse to serve someone impaired through alcohol, even if they have the cash for more.

If someone comes into my shop and gives me 35p for a Creme Egg, I can refuse to serve them. I am not required to serve them by law, and I do not have to give a reason for my refusal. The colour of their skin, their sexual preferences, their physical characteristics - none of it matters. I do not have to give my possessions to them just because they have in their possession the market value of the item in cash.

 

[livemusic]

And this is the point. Why not? If someone can quit a job and not give a reason for it, why must an employer be forced to give a reason for firing someone. It makes no sense, because it is inconsistent.

There's always a reason to quiting a job or firing someone, as silly as it may be. All I'm saying is you can't use racism as the reason to firing someone.

You're kind of stuck in a racism rut here...

Well, that's what we were talking about after all, wasn't it?

"...even if that reason is because you don't trust darkies"

No, if that's the reason then you can't.

 

[Dave A]

Well, that's what we were talking about after all, wasn't it?

No not really, that's merely been an example of what were talking about which is the employers rights to fire somone for no given reason.

 

[livemusic]

No not really, that's merely been an example of what were talking about which is the employers rights to fire somone for no given reason.

I know the thread is about this, I was talking about Famine's example.

All my posts in this thread are about firing someone because of their race, since my first reply to Duke's post.

As I said, I agree you should be able to fire someone for any reason not being racism, but you don't fire someone for no reason at all.

 

[Famine]

I know the thread is about this, I was talking about Famine's example.

Though I HAVE gone out of my way to mention bias against gender, sexual preference, disability and other physical parameters...

You haven't answered the question posed by my example, by the way.

As I said, I agree you should be able to fire someone for any reason not being racism, but you don't fire someone for no reason at all.

So, it seems you're fine to fire someone because they're a woman, or gay, or in a wheelchair then?

 

[livemusic]

So, it seems you're fine to fire someone because they're a woman, or gay, or in a wheelchair then?

That's still a kind of racism. But I guess the correct word would be discrimination.

 

[Danoff]

No, I don't. The market, or businesses are also able to use force.

Let's take the case of Mr. Zeku, a black American who lives with his family in Belleville, a small town, where only 20 black people live. To keep things familiar with this thread, let's say that suddenly a girl is raped and murdered by 4 black people, which Zaku doesn't even know. That girl happens to be the daughter of the CEO of ACME Electrics, an utility company providing electicity for all areas of Belleville. Needless to say, relations with the other 16 black people and the rest of the population are now much less friendly.

Our enraged CEO then decides his company will no longer offer service to any black people in that area, and he also convince his good friend who owns the two local groceries to deny black customers accesss to his stores. Now Zeku has to drive over 30 miles to do his grocery, which is still doable, but if he wants electricity, he'd have to shell out $100K for the closest competitor to reach his house, since they don't currently cover the area.

Since Zeku had a job working with the public, his boss, fearing for his sales, fire him. Now the only option left for Zeku is to sell his house, most likely (for a really low price, taking a loss since people are well aware of his situation), and move with his family to another place.

This may sound far-fetched today, but it was only a few decades ago that black people were forced to take the back seats in buses, or were forbidden to take buses reserved for whites.

Now I'm guessing you don't see anything wrong in what happened there?
Racial segregation and/or discrimination is deeply evil only when done by a government?

Let me ask you something - does the town have a right to the comapany's electricity? It doesn't belong to them, it belongs to the company. Mr. Zeku doesn't have a right to anyone else's property - that includes the company's electricity.

I'm not sure you completely understand the concept of force. Private industry cannot ever force anyone to do anything. The company cannot force Mr. Zeku to move. They can move their business and that can make it unattractice for Mr. Zeku to stay, but they can't force him to move. They can't force Mr. Zeku to do a damn thing, because they can't show up to his house with a gun and threaten him if he doesn't comply. Only the government has that power.

Now, if you tell me that Mr. Zeku has been wronged and that the business, who owns the electric lines and the electricity running through it MUST provide Mr. Zeku electricity - and if they do not, police with guns will show up and threaten the business owner's freedom. You're advocating that force be used against the only victim we have left in this story - the CEO.

You have personal choice. You decide your own destiny - that's what freedom from force is. If you drive by McDonalds and see that they're selling ice cream for 1 cent, you might just stop in and get some. Did they force you to do that or did they make it attractive? If your grocery store raises the price on a product you usually buy and you choose to stop buying it, did they force you to stop buying it? If your electric or water company shuts off your electricty or water and refuses to serve you, and you go and get a different company to serve you (at great expense) or move to a new house. Did they force you to do that? Or did you choose not to live without electricity.

You need to keep in mind what belongs to you and what does not. You don't own your electric company (unless it's run by the government). You don't own anyone else's work or property. It is therefore immoral to attempt to force them to give it to you or anyone else. Whether that's because you're greedy or because you think it's fair to force a racist at the point of a gun to hand over his property to someone he unjustifiably hates.

 

[Duke]

You can fire anyone for any reason (not racism though), but you can't fire anyone for no reason.

But you can QUIT for no reason. How is that fair in ANY way? I'm still waiting for an answer.

 

[Carl.]

Let me ask you something - does the town have a right to the comapany's electricity? It doesn't belong to them, it belongs to the company. Mr. Zeku doesn't have a right to anyone else's property - that includes the company's electricity.

I'm not sure you completely understand the concept of force. Private industry cannot ever force anyone to do anything. The company cannot force Mr. Zeku to move. They can move their business and that can make it unattractice for Mr. Zeku to stay, but they can't force him to move. They can't force Mr. Zeku to do a damn thing, because they can't show up to his house with a gun and threaten him if he doesn't comply. Only the government has that power.

Now, if you tell me that Mr. Zeku has been wronged and that the business, who owns the electric lines and the electricity running through it MUST provide Mr. Zeku electricity - and if they do not, police with guns will show up and threaten the business owner's freedom. You're advocating that force be used against the only victim we have left in this story - the CEO.

You have personal choice. You decide your own destiny - that's what freedom from force is. If you drive by McDonalds and see that they're selling ice cream for 1 cent, you might just stop in and get some. Did they force you to do that or did they make it attractive? If your grocery store raises the price on a product you usually buy and you choose to stop buying it, did they force you to stop buying it? If your electric or water company shuts off your electricty or water and refuses to serve you, and you go and get a different company to serve you (at great expense) or move to a new house. Did they force you to do that? Or did you choose not to live without electricity.

You need to keep in mind what belongs to you and what does not. You don't own your electric company (unless it's run by the government). You don't own anyone else's work or property. It is therefore immoral to attempt to force them to give it to you or anyone else. Whether that's because you're greedy or because you think it's fair to force a racist at the point of a gun to hand over his property to someone he unjustifiably hates.

If you bring that situation in today's real world, our CEO chose to do business in a given society. That society happened to lived through severe racial segregation and discrimination and has seen its consequences. They've chosen, democratically, to forbid such behaviors for business.

Nobody's forcing our CEO to do business if he doesn't like these rules. He's free go elswere to do business if he wants to. But if he stays, he has to follow them, otherwise yes, as with anyone breaking the law, "force" will be used against him.

 

[Danoff]

I do understand the concept of force, and in that case it's fairly accurate to say he's effectively being forced to move.

Now if you bring that situation in today's real world, our CEO choose to do business in a given society. That society happened to lived through severe racial segregation and discrimination and has seen its consequences. They've chosen, democratically, to forbid such behaviors for business.

Nobody's forcing our CEO to do business if he doesn't like these rules. He's free go elswere to do business if he wants to. But if he stays, he has to follow them, otherwise, as with anyone breaking the law, "force" will be used against him.

This is undisciplined use of your brain. You're obviously intelligent, but you're being sloppy with your language and (worse) abstract concepts.

 

[livemusic]

But you can QUIT for no reason. How is that fair in ANY way? I'm still waiting for an answer.

You don't quit for no reason, there's always a reason. I already gave you my view on your original question of why you can quit your job because of racial issues but you can't fire someone by the same reason.

You are now discussing something else and I don't wish to continue.

 

[Danoff]

You don't quit for no reason, there's always a reason. I already gave you my view on your original question of why you can quit your job because of racial issues but you can't fire someone by the same reason.

You are now discussing something else and I don't wish to continue.

You've been doing a lot of this nonsense. You don't explain yourself, then you claim you already explained yourself... and when you get called out, and asked to point out exactly where you explained yourself, you don't even respond. It's ridiculous.

 

[Dave A]

Theres always a reason for you to do anything, that's true, but I think Duke's point is that you don't have to give a reason to quit, you can quit for any reason and you don't even have to give it. The employer has to give a reason to fire you, and it [/i]can't[/i] be any reason.

 

[Carl.]

This is undisciplined use of your brain. You're obviously intelligent, but you're being sloppy with your language and (worse) abstract concepts.

Well, as english isn't my first language, I'm always learning, and I often make a lot of corrections, especially in large posts. Perhaps you mean I'm not using the right wording. In any case, feel free to point out anything I've missed.

Also point out where in that post I'm wrong about an abstract concept.

I think you're good at making abstraction of the actual consequences of theoretical concepts when they're applied to the real world. There's a nice thing called pragmatism, you should try it sometimes.

 

[ExigeEvan]

A good nighst sleep and a day of school doesn't half leave you lagging....

When you have a job done around the house - double-glazing, boiler installation, you know the score - you get several quotes. Now... which quote do you go with? How about car insurance, since that may be more applicable?

If someone will do for you the same quality work for less money, you're going to pick them, aren't you?

Now, how would you feel if the government came in and said "Ah, no... You must pay "x" as a minimum for this job/service."? Not best pleased?


Let us move into the arena of employment. You have three candidates, all of whom are equally qualified for the post, but each of which expects a different salary for it. Since you can assume they'll all do the same quality of work, as they are equally qualified, you're going to go for the one who expects the least salary, in order that you get better value for money. But no! The government says you must pay a minimum of "x" for that job.


If you provide poorer quality work for the same price, or equal quality work for a higher price, you price yourself out of the market - and remember that this is just what employment is... You selling yourself and your services to your employer for what you and they deem suitable remuneration. Except that there is now a set minimum below which people cannot "tender quotes" (be paid).

The question is, if they are willing to do the job for less, why must an employer pay them more, by law, than they are willing to accept if you have no similar obligation to pay more, by law, than an insurance company/gasfitter is willing to accept?

"I disagree, some people need protecting for their own good."

Every single example you have made is based on the employer, the 'big man', Not lets take a look at an example for the 'litte man'.

Okay Bob has just come to this country looking for work, he is here perfectly legally and at present is in a one room apartment and is living off teh little money he brough with him. He now needs a job, but he can hardly speak English and his number skills are that of a yr2 pupil.

The only job on offer to him is digging holes. He goes to the 'job interview' and several others in Bob's financial position are also applying, but these guys have yr 4 numeracy skills. Because there are no laws on minimum wage Bob has to try and out bid the other apllicants but he knows that if he goes below £2 an hour, he'll only be able to keep his flat and have lunch and breakfast but no dinner, but sadly he's forced to accept this wage as if he doesn't take this job there's little chance he'll get another. Well, atleast another that doesn't threaten to mutilate or kill him.

 

[Danoff]

Well, as english isn't my first language, I'm always learning, and I often make a lot of corrections, especially in large posts.

I'm not sure if that helps, but maybe. It depends on how weak your english is. I think you understand the basic principle behind the use of the word "force", so I'm not sure that there is a translation issue here.

Also point out where in that post I'm wrong about an abstract concept.

I think that's the real issue. That you're abusing the concept of force (or perhaps property, I'm still not sure which one). I tried to outline some examples of what is force and what is not. But let me give you a basic hypothetical.

You have food. It's yours, it belongs to you, you own it legitimately. Your buddy does not have food. He comes and asks you for your food, but you don't want to give it to him because you have a limited supply and want to ensure your survival. So you tell him to go away.

He dies of starvation.

Now, you could have saved his life. You could have given him your food. Did you kill him? Did you force him to starve?

 

[Carl.]

I'm not sure if that helps, but maybe. It depends on how weak your english is. I think you understand the basic principle behind the use of the word "force", so I'm not sure that there is a translation issue here.

Ok, I was just wondering if it was filled by bad grammar or spelling for a second.

I think that's the real issue. That you're abusing the concept of force (or perhaps property, I'm still not sure which one). I tried to outline some examples of what is force and what is not. But let me give you a basic hypothetical.

You have food. It's yours, it belongs to you, you own it legitimately. Your buddy does not have food. He comes and asks you for your food, but you don't want to give it to him because you have a limited supply and want to ensure your survival. So you tell him to go away.

He dies of starvation.

Now, you could have saved his life. You could have given him your food. Did you kill him? Did you force him to starve?

No, I didn't force him to starve. In fact, If you look at my original post, I've removed that sentence from my post before you replied, I felt this wasn't the right wording, and that it was besides the point. I think framing the issue on who is using force is misleading. Coercion will always be required for peple not following laws.

Force will be used because there is a law to avoid racial discrimination to cause a prejudice to someone conducting business. That law is present because a democratic process has decided that avoiding such prejudice is a greater asset to society than leaving the door open for abuses, as we've seen in the past. Same principle that restricts my freedom to drive 100mph in a school zone, regardless of my driving skills.

You're right, our CEO is forced to follow that rule, as he is forced to drive at 20 mph in a school zone. On the other hand, he's not forced to stay and conduct business here if he doesn't like it.

 

[Danoff]

No, I didn't force him to starve. In fact, If you look at my original post, I've removed that sentence from my post before you replied, I felt this wasn't the right wording, and that it was besides the point. I think framing the issue on who is using force is misleading. Coercion will always be required for peple not following laws.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Force will be used because there is a law to avoid racial discrimination to cause a prejudice to someone conducting business. That law is present because a democratic process has decided that avoiding such prejudice is a greater asset to society than leaving the door open for abuses, as we've seen in the past. Same principle that restricts my freedom to drive 100mph in a school zone, regardless of my driving skills.

You're right, our CEO is forced to follow that rule, as he is forced to drive at 20 mph in a school zone. On the other hand, he's not forced to stay and conduct business here if he doesn't like it.

I see. So what you're telling me is that the government is the only real force - that free individuals in the market (a free market if you will) do not have actual force over each other because laws exist.

...wait just a minute. I think I remember making that point earlier.

That's the difference between government and private. Government is force, private is not.

 

[Famine]

A good nighst sleep and a day of school doesn't half leave you lagging....

"I disagree, some people need protecting for their own good."

Every single example you have made is based on the employer, the 'big man', Not lets take a look at an example for the 'litte man'.

Actually, I did ask some questions about how you search for products and services like double-glazing or car insurance too...

Okay Bob has just come to this country looking for work, he is here perfectly legally and at present is in a one room apartment and is living off teh little money he brough with him. He now needs a job, but he can hardly speak English and his number skills are that of a yr2 pupil.

The only job on offer to him is digging holes. He goes to the 'job interview' and several others in Bob's financial position are also applying, but these guys have yr 4 numeracy skills. Because there are no laws on minimum wage Bob has to try and out bid the other apllicants but he knows that if he goes below £2 an hour, he'll only be able to keep his flat and have lunch and breakfast but no dinner, but sadly he's forced to accept this wage as if he doesn't take this job there's little chance he'll get another. Well, atleast another that doesn't threaten to mutilate or kill him.

Aaaand..?

Bob places a tender which outcompetes the other applicants. He wins.

 

[Carl.]

Now we're getting somewhere.



I see. So what you're telling me is that the government is the only real force - that free individuals in the market (a free market if you will) do not have actual force over each other because laws exist.

...wait just a minute. I think I remember making that point earlier.

That's the difference between government and private. Government is force, private is not.

Again, that's beside the point.

Perhaps I am the victim of the government for not being allowed to enjoy my freedom of driving 100mph in a school zone?

 

[FoolKiller]

Again, that's beside the point.

Perhaps I am the victim of the government for not being allowed to enjoy my freedom of driving 100mph in a school zone?

Endangering someone's life causes a violation of their right to life. There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. What have I done to harm a person by saying they can't shop in my store for whatever reason? Some businesses do still have the sign that says they retain the right to refuse service to anyone they choose. That shouldn't be legal should it?

Instances where it is legal to discriminate:

I can get kicked out of a store/restaurant for not wearing a shirt or shoes, or both. So it is okay to discriminate against white trash but not minorities?

I have to meet a certain dress code at work or I get fired. What if I don't have the money to afford a suit and tie when I first get hired? It's okay to be fired because I am poor?

A man with Turrets can be asked to leave a store/restaurant. So it is okay to discriminate against the mentally ill?

A store owner can kick out the guy who slept with his wife. It's okay to discriminate against people you don't like?

Tell me why racism against minorities gets a special case here?

 

[Carl.]

Endangering someone's life causes a violation of their right to life. There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. What have I done to harm a person by saying they can't shop in my store for whatever reason? Some businesses do still have the sign that says they retain the right to refuse service to anyone they choose. That shouldn't be legal should it?

Instances where it is legal to discriminate:

I can get kicked out of a store/restaurant for not wearing a shirt or shoes, or both. So it is okay to discriminate against white trash but not minorities?

I have to meet a certain dress code at work or I get fired. What if I don't have the money to afford a suit and tie when I first get hired? It's okay to be fired because I am poor?

A man with Turrets can be asked to leave a store/restaurant. So it is okay to discriminate against the mentally ill?

A store owner can kick out the guy who slept with his wife. It's okay to discriminate against people you don't like?

Tell me why racism against minorities gets a special case here?

So for you Apartheid would have been perfectly OK if the government didn't participate in it? Racial segregation is fine and doesn't lead to serious consequences for society?

 

[Danoff]

Again, that's beside the point.

Perhaps I am the victim of the government for not being allowed to enjoy my freedom of driving 100mph in a school zone?

Good laws protect rights. Bad ones violate them. Justification for law is based on human rights - which leads us to ask two questions:

1) Do you have a right to drive on publicly owned roads however fast you want to go?
2) Do you have a right to force someone to employ you?

I'd say no, and I can justify that (visit the human rights thread in the opinions forum).

 

[Sphinx]

Actually, I did ask some questions about how you search for products and services like double-glazing or car insurance too...



Aaaand..?

Bob places a tender which outcompetes the other applicants. He wins.

"Aaaand?"

I think you know very well what the outcome would be Famine. I believe you are arguing just for the sake of it. In fact I still remember you moaning about when your employer changed working practices that you felt undermined your contract of employment. I'm sure you would be the first to cry foul play if your employer replaced you for someone less qualified and for less money than yourself.

 

[Carl.]

Good laws protect rights. Bad ones violate them. Justification for law is based on human rights - which leads us to ask two questions:

1) Do you have a right to drive on publicly owned roads however fast you want to go?
2) Do you have a right to force someone to employ you?

I'd say no, and I can justify that (visit the human rights thread in the opinions forum).

I never mentioned forcing to employ anyone, I am not for affirmative action.

Being discriminated because of your race is another story though. The question is:

Do you have to right not to suffer discrination because of your race?

Many articles of the universal declaration of human rights says yes. So am I, and so is the majority of people in our society, hence the laws against racial discrimination.

 

[Famine]

I'm not following.

How is my employer - coincidentally HM Government - changing an agreed contract without dialogue in any way related to the concept of tendering?

All this aside, someone who is less qualified than me would not be able to do the same job as me, so my employer replacing me for someone less qualified and for less money would result in their loss of productivity as a job vacuum is created.

Now if my employer replaced me with someone AS qualified as me but for less money the question would be why I'm pricing myself out of the job market with my higher tender... If I can be undercut and the employer sees no drop in quality then my wage demands are too high. As it is, under the Agenda For Change, anyone doing my job with my experience must be paid my salary - but this applies to public sector workers only.


EE's example made no sense as Bob, our hero, won. His tender was accepted - he outcompeted others in his field for the project.

(and I'm discussing, rather than arguing. "Arguing" has such hostile overtones. I'm really a very friendly bod... )

 

[Danoff]

I never mentioned forcing to employ anyone, I am not for affirmative action.

Ah but you are. When you say that an employer cannot discontinue employment for any reason, you're forcing them to employ someone they wouldn't be.

Being discriminated because of your race is another story though. The question is:

Do you have to right not to suffer discrination because of your race?

Of course not. That would make racial discrimination illegal altogether, which is not the case (and cannot be). You may not think so, but race is arbitrary. It's like saying you have a right not to suffer discrimination because of your hair color, or because of your eye color, or because of your intelligence, or appearance.

I mean if we couldn't discriminate based on looks, hooters, strip clubs, and victoria's secret would all go out of business. What if a company was not allowed to discriminate based on intelligence?

But let's forget about companies for a second, because your statement isn't limited to hiring practices. You say no-one has a right to suffer discrimination because of their race. But that means that the rest of us don't have a right to discriminate. Kindof invalidates the first ammendment don't you think?

Edit: Please go to the human rights thread in the opinions forum and prove that human beings have a right not to be discriminated against due to race.