I’m not accusing YOU of being racist. I’m saying your idea of freedom would let racists do… well, that, for example.
1 Like
It seems that you suggest that Straight White Christian Men are less equal.
Or
Everyone else is immune to the rules or mores or whatever.
Not at all. It is a law restricting the government from interfering with pursuit of happiness via your eating cake. It grants you nothing. It is only a restriction on the government.
Allot of people fell asleep in class before they got to the 10th amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This idea that the constitution grants or conveys rights to the people is really odd. I can’t understand how it got started but allot of otherwise intelligent people seem to be under this illusion.
You can put all the bizarre restrictions you like on yourself, but as soon as you do it to employees that’s coercion.
2 Likes
I know. Please believe me when I say that the idea doesn’t sit well with me.
But I simply can’t defend my own freedom of speech unless Westboro Baptist and Stormfront and Nambla and FOX News also get to defend theirs. As much as I’d love to see them all silenced, I can’t restrict their rights without sacrificing my own.
I feel like that principle extends to freedom of association as well. If someone with swastika tatoos comes into my shop, I’d like to be able to ask them to leave- But that means recognizing their ability to do the same if I walk into their shop.
I don’t like it, but I don’t see a real choice in the matter.
2 Likes
I would argue that that is dependent on whether the restrictions apply outside of work. (And again- I’m talking sole proprietorships, not legally separate businesses.)
If I’m an orthodox Jew, I can’t tell my employees that they have to give up bacon, but I can tell them not to bring it onto my property. If I have severe asthma or allergies, I should be able to prohibit employees from wearing perfumes or bringing peanut butter for lunch- For them it’s nonsensical, but for me it might be a major health hazzard.
I’m against drug testing for the same reason: I should absolutely be able to fire someone for bringing drugs onto my property, but what people do when they’re not under my roof is none of my business.
But I’m also coming at this from the perspective of a small business owner- I spent years building my business singlehandedly, working all hours and trying to grow out of my garage and spare room. Eventually I would love to get to a point where day-to-day operations are overseen by an army of managers- But my next step (or next dozen steps) will likely be one where I have one or maybe two employees, and still personally spend 12-16 hours a day in my shop. At that point, that business is more my home than my house is- And I feel like I have a right to set whatever rules I need to be comfortable there.
1 Like
What do you suggest the line for legal recognition of a business is, then? Incorporation, or making money from providing goods and services? I suppose a median point between those two would be paying taxes and declaring earnings?
1 Like
I would say that it’s the moment the business becomes it’s own entity.
At the moment, my business is a website, a workshop in my garage, and an EzUp canopy. While I use a credit card processor and keep records of everything, business income and expenses go in and out of my personal checking account. My business name is filed as a DBA. I am the sole employee, although my wife helps load the truck or watch the booth occasionally. The business is, for all intents and purposes, an extension of myself or my household.
If, however, I were to file as an LLC, partnership, or fullly incorporate, I would no longer be personally liable for debts incurred by the business. I would most likely not want to move into a storefront or hire employees without taking this step. I believe that those legal protections I gain should come at the cost of having to follow certain societal rules of conduct.
IMHO, that would be the point where I would draw the line.
In between now and then, however, might be steps such as establishing a separate bank account (or you could argue that PayPal is one), or perhaps a contractor/commission arrangement where I could vend at two fairs at once. You could make a good argument for either of those, and I think we could have a totally legitimate debate over exactly where the line gets drawn, but I think my position is reasonable: It’s when your business gains legal protection beyond yourself.
1 Like
all business is a construct of the law. likewise, your own roof, your own home, the existence of property and money. all of these things which seem entirely “your own” are all, in fact, supported and protected by government and civil society.
you might want to enjoy those protections without any of the responsibilities that come along with them – but it’s not really a reasonable expectation.
1 Like
Actually, I see it as a matter of responsibility. At this point, I am my business. I am directly responsible for everything related to it.
If I am not allowed to turn away a Klansman or an anti-gay crusader, I can’t hide behind “business is business”- I am personally responsible for that transaction, and I don’t want my involvement to be interpreted as an endorsement.
1 Like
as others mentioned above, there’s a difference between turning away individuals and discriminating against a class of people based on gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
the point for all of this is that you can’t infringe upon another person’s rights just because you are a business owner. ( or, actually, if you’d rather: you can infringe upon those rights, but you can be sued, censured, etc. for doing so. )
Somalia, the libertarian paradise.
Don’t be silly. It’s full of poors. Brown poors. No True Libertarian Paradise could EVER have that happen…
1 Like
I also support those groups’ right to free speech. You and I seem to differ on what practices constitute “speech,” however. If a business owner wants to talk about the evils of contraception, that’s speech. If they restrict their employees from using contraception, that’s something else entirely.
5 Likes
Actually, I think what I’ve been arguing is that individuals have rights, but businesses do not.
If my “business” is me + a toolbox and business card, then it’s actions and responsibilities are solely mine- whatever “rights” it has are ultimately my own.
Once the business is a separate entity, it has no rights. The owner does, but can no longer shield the company under them.
In either case, I’ve only ever argued for control of what happens within my four walls- once someone is out the door, I have no say over their actions.
1 Like
“there’s a difference between turning away individuals and discriminating against a class of people”
Where do you draw that line? All groups are comprised if individuals.
I draw the line at whether membership within that class is voluntarily. I don’t buy that racists or homophobes are somehow more deserving of tolerance as a group than they are as individuals.
1 Like
“Don’t be silly. It’s full of poors. Brown poors. No True Libertarian Paradise could EVER have that happen…”
I think they almost have to have those though - otherwise who is going to do all the real work that keeps things running? Certainly not the Captains of Industry and Masters of The Universe. Of course, the poors wouldn’t have rights or the vote - those are reserved for Free Men.
2 Likes
And today’s secret word is, “intolerant”. You remember what to do when anyone says the word right? Scream!
Democrats are intolerant of libertarian ideas that intolerance can be discouraged without government intervention. We probably have intolerant feelings towards NAMBLA. I’m intolerant of Russian style communism. Racists are intolerant of people from certain races. Anti-racists are intolerant of racist behavior. David Green founded Hobby Lobby and gave millions of dollars to a segregationist, Jerry Falwell, who was intolerant of racial mixing. Republicans and Democrats are intolerant of each other. Agnostics tend to be less intolerant than others, except when it comes to radical agnostics because you must be intolerant to intolerance.
Hey! This exchange between Mike the Bard and Daneyul was worth the whole agonizing ‘here we go again’ on employee birth control. A really good, civilized and thoughtful debate. A minute ago I thought Mike was shut down, but then his/her final comment turned it around and I’m leaning toward full bodily autonomy as a basic right, with the stipulations not the full stop. But it’s really close. I like it when I know I will be churning over and reproducing parts of these debates later on.
OK, but I remind you that earlier you stated:
If I want to impose bizzare restrictions on my employees, refuse to do business with a certain type of person, or otherwise run things according to my own conscience, I think I should be allowed to do so.
That’s where the regulations governing things like “fair hiring practices” and “discrimination” come in. By definition, any form of business transaction involves more than one party. Our society sets certain rules governing those transactions whether you’re a corporation, a sole proprietor, or a customer.
1 Like
