Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then you're obviously fine with those businesses who would decide to "reach out to" only whites and never hire someone of another race. After all it's none of someone else's business, not the government's job.
Certainly if it's fine with you to discriminate against Americans, it must be fine to discriminate against just certain Americans.
Companies aren't "discriminating against americans" because they just love mexicans. They're discriminating in such a way that they get a better price on stuff they need. They're making their business more efficient and competitive. When you make decisions based on superficial critieria such as skin color alone, you're actually making your business less efficient and competitive, since you're excluding entire portions of the workforce from your pool for reasons that aren't applicable to performance, productivity, or efficency.
If a racist wants to cripple his own business, that wouldn't really be the worst thing in the world IMO, but I'm not particularly in a huge huff to repeal those laws.
And laws such as the parts of the Civil Rights Act that specifically deal with government agencies discriminating on race are very, very necessary once we accept that certain aspects of the economy will be monopolized by government.
And you haven't eliminated the big government-free public schools, free food stamps, free Medicaid system yet to have this big no-government anarchy kind of paradise.
At the current time, you can bring in semi-trailer-loads of your cheapest labor possible but they are entitled to my money because they can bring their kids, have more kids and all are "entitled" to free schools, free food, even free housing if you don't decide to put them up in your garage.
Under your logic, then if you can bring in semi-trailer loads of ultra cheap illegals and dump the real cost of them on the taxpayers, then why couldn't I go buy me some slaves and I'll take care of them?
(And no I don't believe in slavery, just using an example)
The fact that you've decided to give away free stuff doesn't give you a right to tell me who I can do business with. If you don't like giving your money away to brown people then I suggest you stop giving money away.
As for slavery, just like so many other doomed arguments desperately put forward by people in this forum flailing around looking for anything to fight back with, you're willfully ignoring that immigrants move and take jobs because they want to.
Discrimination is against the law as is bringing in trailer loads of illegals to hire is against the law.
What of slavery? Why can't Employer C buy up slaves if he prefers the really cheap labor?
Well slavery is also against the law, just as bringing in illegals is.
So basically anyone who is advocating for changing ANY law is effectively arguing that murder should be legal in your opinion? Because MURDER is ALSO AGAINST THE LAW.
The fact that you've decided to give away free stuff doesn't give you a right to tell me who I can do business with. If you don't like giving your money away to brown people then I suggest you stop giving money away.
As for slavery, just like so many other doomed arguments desperately put forward by people in this forum flailing around looking for anything to fight back with, you're willfully ignoring that immigrants move and take jobs because they want to.
Really, you have a stunning inability to recognize that "what's best for business" or "what business people want" does not always equal "what's best for America."
More reminiscent of someone who has spent a little too much time reading Ayn Rand and getting indoctrinated by goober Libertarian blogs than anyone who has spent any time criticaly and pragmatically thinking about what to do to tackle illegal immigration.
Get over it: You do not live in an anarcho-capitalist country. Never have, never will. The issue is illegal immigration. If you can get ten thousand Somalians to live on your farm out of their own free will, call you old massuh and work in exchange for 50 cents a day and free housing, then great for you.... IF you're in Somalia. In America, we have rules, worker protections, wage standards and a social safety net. If that is unacceptable to you, the great Horn of Africa and its wide open markets beckons you home.
Really, you have a stunning inability to recognize that "what's best for business" or "what business people want" does not always equal "what's best for America."
More reminiscent of someone who has spent a little too much time reading Ayn Rand and getting indoctrinated by goober Libertarian blogs than anyone who has spent any time criticaly and pragmatically thinking about what to do to tackle illegal immigration.
Get over it: You do not live in an anarcho-capitalist country. Never have, never will. The issue is illegal immigration. If you can get ten thousand Somalians to live on your farm out of their own free will, call you old massuh and work in exchange for 50 cents a day and free housing, then great for you.... IF you're in Somalia. In America, we have rules, worker protections, wage standards and a social safety net. If that is unacceptable to you, the great Horn of Africa and its wide open markets beckons you home.
I am not under any impressions of living in a "anarcho-capitalist" country, sorry.
I'm not really concerned about what's best for business, nor do I care about what's best for america. I don't worship ayn rand. I'm not confused as to what rules we currently have here in america. But it's much easier for you to build up these caricature strawmen than it is to actually respond to what I've written, I guess.
If two people find mutually agreeable terms to conduct a transaction, and you come along and prevent them from doing business because you're mad that one of them undercut your price and hence cost you the business, well, that might actually be legal in the US, but the fact that it's LEGAL does not make it RIGHT.
It's funny how you whine about anarcho-capitalist this or that but nothing I'm saying requires getting rid of government, or even getting rid of worker protections. It does require getting rid of worker protectionism for an entitled, privileged overclass, though.
If you want to go read "goober" blogs, go ahead, but here we're talking about actual issues.
Really, you have a stunning inability to recognize that "what's best for business" or "what business people want" does not always equal "what's best for America."
More reminiscent of someone who has spent a little too much time reading Ayn Rand and getting indoctrinated by goober Libertarian blogs than anyone who has spent any time criticaly and pragmatically thinking about what to do to tackle illegal immigration.
Get over it: You do not live in an anarcho-capitalist country. Never have, never will. The issue is illegal immigration. If you can get ten thousand Somalians to live on your farm out of their own free will, call you old massuh and work in exchange for 50 cents a day and free housing, then great for you.... IF you're in Somalia. In America, we have rules, worker protections, wage standards and a social safety net. If that is unacceptable to you, the great Horn of Africa and its wide open markets beckons you home.
I am not under any impressions of living in a "anarcho-capitalist" country, sorry.
It's not that you THINK you do, it's that you think we SHOULD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
I'm not really concerned about what's best for business, nor do I care about what's best for america. I don't worship ayn rand. I'm not confused as to what rules we currently have here in america. But it's much easier for you to build up these caricature strawmen than it is to actually respond to what I've written, I guess.
No, actually it's quite easy to pick apart your arguments, because they are made from a warped, libertarian and business-only perspective. Your obsession about being able to hire whatever indentured servants you want to without big bad uncle same telling you otherwise is a dead giveaway.
You also COMPLETELY disregard any notion or evidence that the perceived "benefits" to business are SUBSIDIZED by the rest of us.... just like Wal-Mart's profits are subsidized by the taxpayer in the form of assistance given to its employees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
If two people find mutually agreeable terms to conduct a transaction, and you come along and prevent them from doing business because you're mad that one of them undercut your price and hence cost you the business, well, that might actually be legal in the US, but the fact that it's LEGAL does not make it RIGHT.
In this case, it is not only LEGAL, but RIGHT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
It's funny how you whine about anarcho-capitalist this or that but nothing I'm saying requires getting rid of government, or even getting rid of worker protections. It does require getting rid of worker protectionism for an entitled, privileged overclass, though.
"Worker protectionism" in your case is euphemism for what? Minimum wage? VISA requirements?
By the way, the "entitled, privileged overclass" is EXACTLY who you are protecting with "open borders" policies! The UNDERCLASS, the skilled tradesmen and unskilled laborers, are usually the ones most hurt by third world competition (and working expectations) co-existing in first-world society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime
If you want to go read "goober" blogs, go ahead, but here we're talking about actual issues.
No. You're only talking about a FRACTION of the issue. And that's the problem. You're so stuck on what the government can and cannot do vis-a-vis "restricting your right to contract for employment" that you fail to recognize that such actions, in the EXISTING framework, lead to absurd, inhumane, and unjust results. The "bad" occasioned by your "contract rights" being restricted < the bad occasioned by "open borders" labor competition WITHIN the United States!
Don't ask me to subsidize your desire to maximize profits by exploiting the desperation (and calling it "free will") of the third world poor... at home OR abroad.
No, actually it's quite easy to pick apart your arguments, because they are made from a warped, libertarian and business-only perspective. Your obsession about being able to hire whatever indentured servants you want to without big bad uncle same telling you otherwise is a dead giveaway.
Except this is completely wrong. My argument is about the people who want to work. There is a whole slew of people here who want to keep certain poor people condemned to a life of poverty so they can continue living their luxurious lifestyle with minimal effort. It has nothing to do with an obsession with businesses. I have no business only perspective.
Quote:
You also COMPLETELY disregard any notion or evidence that the perceived "benefits" to business are SUBSIDIZED by the rest of us.... just like Wal-Mart's profits are subsidized by the taxpayer in the form of assistance given to its employees.
It doesn't matter.
FWIW, I'm basically opposed to the way corporations are chartered in the US, so you can stop that whole strawman, even though it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote:
In this case, it is not only LEGAL, but RIGHT.
Because you say so.
Quote:
"Worker protectionism" in your case is euphemism for what? Minimum wage? VISA requirements?
It doesn't matter. You can include any of them, all of them, take your pick. The point is those types of regulations on working conditions are COMPLETELY SEPARABLE from restrictions on WHICH PEOPLE are legally allowed to work. You want to ignore and handwave this away. That alone says VOLUMES and basically is a capitulation on your part. Everything else is you squirming trying to score cheap points.
Quote:
By the way, the "entitled, privileged overclass" is EXACTLY who you are protecting with "open borders" policies! The UNDERCLASS, the skilled tradesmen and unskilled laborers, are usually the ones most hurt by third world competition (and working expectations) co-existing in first-world society.
But compared to the laborers you would have excluded and condemned to perpetual poverty, those laborers are privileged and an overclass. You can't pretend that people born outside of the US just don't matter or somehow aren't human beings.
Quote:
No. You're only talking about a FRACTION of the issue. And that's the problem. You're so stuck on what the government can and cannot do vis-a-vis "restricting your right to contract for employment" that you fail to recognize that such actions, in the EXISTING framework, lead to absurd, inhumane, and unjust results. The "bad" occasioned by your "contract rights" being restricted < the bad occasioned by "open borders" labor competition WITHIN the United States!
I don't think that american workers having to up their game and provide more value and productivity is an inhumane, unjust result. And it's not by any objective criteria.
Don't ask me to subsidize your desire to maximize profits by exploiting the desperation (and calling it "free will") of the third world poor... at home OR abroad.[/quote]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
