Discrimination Is Not Evil
by Henrik Ræder Clausen and AMT
with additional translation by JLH
A couple of interesting, seemingly connected stories have come out of Austria. Both have to do with discrimination, yet the outcomes are very different. “Discrimination” is all the rage these days. Being able to discriminate used to be considered a positive, personal quality. Times have changed, and now “discrimination” is considered a serious crime.The first story concerns a young English teacher, Mr. Maier. Working at an English language institute, he has been helping students prepare for their IELTS exam, an exam non-native speakers of English must take if they want to study at English or American universities. Mr. Maier’s success rate is a high one, and many of his former students have informed him about their scores, which are usually those the students were aiming for.
A quality indeed, and worth paying for.
Recently, Mr. Maier was asked once again whether he would available to coach two girls wanting to take the IELTS, and together with the office manager dates were set up. When he inquired whether the course would take place he was told that the prospective students had asked whether the teacher was a “native” speaker. The office manager answered in the negative even though this is not true, as Mr. Maier is completely bilingual and has been booked as “native speaker” many times before. In addition, the students demanded that the teacher possess US citizenship since that would virtually guarantee them high scores on the test. Explanations that Mr. Maier boasts more than seven years’ experience in test preparation were deemed completely irrelevant by the students.
In a perfect world, this situation would be nothing to report. Mr. Maier could, and would, accept that the customer is a) always right, and b) has the right to choose his or her teacher.
In the warped world of today, this is clear discrimination. Mr. Maier was discriminated against because of his citizenship, or lack thereof. He failed to get the job not because of his abilities, but because he did not have the right passport.
Also in a sane world, where citizens are free to do as they see fit, this constitutes discrimination. So what?
In the warped world of today, as in a perfect world, Mr. Maier would not dream of suing for compensation. He is of the opinion that discrimination is a fact of life, a part of everyday dealings, and as such in most cases not negative.
The virtue of discrimination
In everyday life, people discriminate. They pick apple pie over peach pie, for no other reason than liking apple pie better. That doesn’t offend the peach pie, nor should it. Customers are free to choose where to put their money, and can choose one store for the simple reason of liking it better than the other — or, as above, to dismiss qualified suppliers on any irrational grounds. That constitutes ‘discrimination’, yet is perfectly legal.
Discrimination means differentiating between what is desirable and what is not. It is a subjective evaluation of things, events and persons, and by human nature we do tend to distinguish between good and bad, useful and useless, desirable and unattractive. Laws against ‘discrimination’ as such — that is, laws that are overly broad — deny us the right to differentiate in certain fields of life, and conversely assign others rights to not be discriminated against.
This is, as a principle of law, rather abstract, and a significant departure from how we live our lives. In daily life we discriminate who to visit, who to date, who to start projects with etc. We do so based on personal evaluations and prejudices (well- or ill-founded), but generally we do have the right to evaluate things personally and act upon our judgment. ‘Discrimination’ simply isn’t a crime in the same sense that ‘theft’ or ‘rape’ is.
Then, why do we have laws against ‘discrimination’?
There has been a general condemnation of being ‘prejudiced’, that is, having preconceived ideas. The notion behind this is that prejudice results in widespread damaging behavior, is the root cause of problematic attitudes such as anti-Semitism, and that by eradicating prejudice one can prevent future crimes originating from unjustified prejudice.
But prejudice makes sense. If you’re in a jungle and see that on one side of a tree there is a striped head, on the other side a striped tail, the prejudiced person will conclude “Tiger!” and get out of there fast. The person prejudiced against prejudice would have a similar reaction, but would force himself to say: “Really, I can’t permit myself to be prejudiced against tigers, and the tiger may even feel offended if I do something to indicate that I don’t like it. Thus better to walk on and pretend nothing is amiss.” Here, as in other cases, natural selection clearly favors prejudice.
Fort Hood, political correctness, and the fear of facing actual problems
The problem is that if we don’t have the guts to differentiate between ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’, and to act accordingly, we get eaten. Or shot, as was the case at Fort Hood, where Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan should have been suspended from service long before he managed to shoot 41 people, killing 31 of them. Fear of ‘discriminating’ constrained the hand of the intelligence services, with fatal results.As Brigitte Gabriel of Act for America puts it:
- - - - - - - - -
“Political correctness. It’s no longer annoying and frustrating. It’s no longer a restraint on common sense and speech. It’s dangerous and deadly,” Gabriel said.
[…]
“Why is political correctness so powerful that there are some in the military that would risk the lives of their soldiers [rather than] be accused of discrimination?” she said.
“Those same leaders who would bravely lead troops into battle are cowering in fear of political correctness,” she said.
‘Political correctness’, ‘religious sensitivity’, ‘anti-discrimination’ — the problem has many names. Yet, they have a common core — a denial of our right to act in accordance with our values. International organizations and human rights committees deal with problems on levels of abstraction bordering on the absurd — thus the generic condemnation of ‘discrimination’ — and this leads to regulation on the rights of discotheque owners to refuse guests, while neglecting real world problems of severe persecution. This nitpicking on benign details while ignoring glaring problems is ridiculous.
The other incident concerns a young Austrian of Egyptian background who wanted to enjoy a night out in the Austrian city of St. Pölten. He and his friends tried to gain entrance to a discotheque, where the security guard at the door checked identification of those wanting to enter the premises. This is standard in Austria and has been for as long as one can remember. According to several newspaper reports, the security guard denied the man entry, saying “Today we only allow regular patrons.” When the young man asked whether this denial was as a result of nationality [?? He was Austrian, so what was the problem? He has Austrian citizenship, but apparently still feels Egyptian], the security guard referred to his boss and his rules. A week later, the young man tried again, with the same result: “Not today!”
The rejected man contacted ZARA, the most important anti-racism group in Austria, which also reports to the EU and the Fundamental Rights Agency, and charges of discrimination were filed immediately. According to the verdict:
In both cases the plaintiff was refused admission to the discotheque exclusively on grounds of his ethnicity which was determined by his ‘foreign appearance’ and by the name on his driver’s license. In accordance with paragraph 1, section 1Z4 of the GIBG, no one may be directly or indirectly discriminated against in admission to or acquisition of goods and services which are available to the public. If a person receives, has received, or would receive less favorable treatment than another person in a comparable situation on grounds of ethnicity, that is direct discrimination. In the eyes of the law, the plaintiff proved discrimination. Testimony of foreign witnesses on behalf of the discotheque changed nothing. The discotheque was legally required to pay punitive damages in the amount of 1440 euros.
Business owners, on the other hand, do not have an immediate right to refuse doing business with individuals they do not like. Anti-discrimination laws with strong punishments make business owners give up, and assigns immigrants special rights to act with impunity in detrimental ways.
According to Kurier (March 17, 2010, page 18), the owner of the discotheque said he would pay, but only due to economic reasons. “It is a waste of money to take the case to the supreme court.” The verdict surprised him because it was the young Egyptian-Austrian who caused the problems in his discotheque. “We have many guests from many different countries whom we hold very dear and who ‘play’ according to the rules and laws.” However, there are some guests with a migration background “who do not accept our cultural norms.”
This is the crux of the matter. The business owner is trying to uphold what is considered decent behavior in his place, according to what is ultimately his personal judgment. That will naturally exclude persons who have, ahem, different behaviors, for example towards women. While no specifics are given, there appears to be a history of problems with this particular person.
This verdict brushes this off, and trumps the indicated problems, as well as several witnesses who spoke for the discotheque owner. The indication of a history of trouble-making, backed by witnesses, should cast into reasonable doubt that the exclusion was based on ethnicity, yet did not. The usual legal practice of not passing a guilty verdict as long as reasonable doubt exists appears to have been ignored. The fear of ‘discrimination’ apparently trumps classical principles of Rule of Law.
Further, this verdict is an example of what we term ‘draconian’ punishment. The actual damage done is immaterial, it is not like there is a damaged car to repair or a broken window to replace. A feeling of ‘unjust discrimination’ is hard to quantify in monetary terms, for no free market exists where this feeling is traded at observable prices. Thus, instead of defining a fine with direct proportion to actual damage, it is set to a level that should be sufficient to force a change in behavior for the defendant, as well as other citizens made aware of the verdict. This kind of micromanagement of citizens who have not committed any crime is not fitting for a free society.
Verdict: Discotheque Found Guilty of Refusing Admittance
It is the first verdict in Austria that clearly categorizes refusal of admission because of “foreign appearance as direct discrimination on the grounds of ethnic identity”.
The verdict appears to be groundbreaking to the political and leftist elite and has thus been published online:
Facts:
In the first instance, the plaintiff wished to visit a discotheque in St. Pölten, together with a friend. Everyone in front of them was admitted. Even the friend was allowed to enter. After looking at the plaintiff’s driver’s license, the security firm charged with monitoring admission refused the complainant admission on the grounds that only “regular customers” would be allowed in. Since it was clear to the plaintiff that refusal of admission was on the basis of his of his nationality, he inquired of the door-man. This person did not answer the question and made clear that he could do nothing more and referred cryptically to the boss’s instructions. During this time, the other door-man let the rest of the people in.
A week later, the plaintiff tried again with a different friend to visit the discotheque. Again he had to show ID. The doorman looked at the driver’s license and said: “Not today.” Once again, the friend was allowed in with no problem.
The doorman is hired to do things like this, valued for his skill in discriminating who make good customers and who do not. Note that no explicit reason for the rejection is given. Unless we’re missing something, the ethnic justification for the rejection is an assumption, not a documented fact.
Now, doormen represent the business owner and are hired for business purposes. Hiring a doorman costs money, and having him turn away prospective customers is an immediate expense as well. Business owners have as their primary concern to turn a profit, and would not decline business unless there is a reason for it — such as individuals disturbing an otherwise pleasant evening for his other customers.
The article continues:
Complaint
The plaintiff turned to ZARA — Civil Courage and Work Against Racism. ZARA activated its complaints department and, represented by them, the young man sued the company responsible for immaterial compensation for discrimination on the grounds of ethnic identity in two cases under the Equal Treatment Law (GIBG) and he won.
Verdict
The verdict is clear. In the findings it says: “In both cases the plaintiff was refused admission to the discotheque exclusively on grounds of his ethnicity which was determined by his ‘foreign appearance’ and by the name in his driver’s license.” In accordance with paragraph 1, section 1Z4 of the GIBG, no one may be directly or indirectly discriminated against in admission to or acquisition of goods and services which are available to the public.
This is a matter of principle. In a purely free society, any business owner — any individual, in fact — would be free to decide who he’d do business with and who he’d reject, without providing any justification for his choices. Now, this is obviously a hypothetical situation. Regulations exist, and anyone wanting to do business will have to abide to those restrictions, or not run a business at all.
There’s an asymmetry here, though. Customers are still free to choose their shops based on any criteria they desire, while business owners do not have that right. This actually constitutes a limitation to the property rights of the business owner. He owns his business, and as such has a fundamental right to do with his business as his pleases, including turning away potential customers.
The principle of ownership implies that the owner has the right to deny others the use of his property at his own discretion. Anti-discrimination laws violate this fundamental principle.
This verdict makes that right secondary to the right of the potential customer not to feel discriminated against, and assigns the person a positive right, enforced by the legal system, to be admitted to the discotheque.
If a person receives, has received, or would receive less favorable treatment than another person in a comparable situation on grounds of ethnicity, that is direct discrimination. In the eyes of the law, the plaintiff proved discrimination. Testimony of foreign witnesses on behalf of the discotheque altered nothing. The discotheque was legally required to pay punitive damages in the amount of €1440 Euros.
This is a rather remarkable fine, right up there in the league with drunk driving, violence, and compensation for unjustified imprisonment. One may wonder: “Why so big a fine?”
The objective of such hefty damages is obviously to dissuade the business owner from repeating the offense, and to present a clear example to other business owners that acting in a similar way will be expensive and detrimental to their profits, in order that they will not act in a similar way. By imposing fines of this size, all business owners will be made to fear similar lawsuits, and thus refrain from refusing admission of similar persons. This is in line with the EU Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia, which states:
The purpose of this framework decision is to ensure that racism and xenophobia are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties in the European Union (EU).
Now, racism in its extreme forms has led to unspeakable crimes, which every decent human being will not wish to see repeated. But will forcing discotheque owners to admit otherwise unwanted persons serve that end, or will it eventually make matters worse?
According to Kurier (March 17, 2010, page 18): “The verdict surprised him, because it was the young Egyptian-Austrian who caused the problems in his discotheque.”
This is important, for a primary function of the doorman is to keep out troublemakers, and apparently there is a previous history of problems here. Now this function has been deemed of secondary importance to ‘non-discrimination’. This verdict will make it harder for discotheque owners to evict troublemakers of non-Austrian ethnic origin. To put it another way: There will be much more scope for non-Austrians to behave in unruly ways, and this is bound to have a negative impact on the perception of immigrants.
The article continues:
Commentary
In the course of this trial, a much-discussed question about passive legitimization in connection with refusal of admission (the question of who is the correct defendant) was finally judicially resolved.
The issue of who bears the responsibility in cases like this is of lesser interest. Common sense dictates that the security company does represent the business in a case like this.
From the filing of the suit to the verdict, the trial lasted just one year. In the trial, the defendant objected that it had tasked an external security firm and therefore passive legitimization was lacking. The court explained:
“The case before the court is to be judged from the point of view of a hospitality contract and the pre-contractual duties of protection which result from that. A pre-contractual obligation of protection on the part of the defendant is that the defendant shall not be discriminated against on grounds of ethnicity in connection with this hospitality contract. When the defendant employed a security firm, it guaranteed against violation by the doormen of GIBG paragraph 1313a of the General Civil Code of Law (ABGB), because the actions of the doormen were within the job description indicated by the plaintiff and were foreseeable in it.
From start to finish, the trial lasted just under a year.
The above story appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Another followed immediately:
Damages: Disco Before the Kadi (judge)
A Turk and his Austrian wife were denied entrance to a Graz disco — they are now suing for damages. Owners of the Disco were not prepared to comment.
A verdict in St. Pölten is causing commotion in the disco scene: for the first time, a disco owner had to pay damages because a young man from St. Pölten was not allowed into the club because of his ethnic origin. The verdict was 1440 euros.
In Graz a similar case is pending. Family B. wanted to spend a relaxing evening in the disco Fledermaus, but it came to nothing. The doorman (bouncer) refused them entrance. “After that had happened to us often, this time we really got mad,” says Mrs. B. They turned to Helping Hands and the equal rights commission in Vienna.
It was November, 2008. The married couple wanted to enter the disco close to midnight, but two bouncers demanded the man’s ID — no passport, no entry. The couple went home and returned twenty minutes later with the Turkish husband’s pass. However, that was still not enough for the bouncers. “We select our guests,” they are reported to have said.
This constitutes a rerun of the scenario above, with a clear assertion from the business owner that he has a right to choose who to do business with. This right is now being disputed in court, and since laws against ‘discrimination’ are in force, there is a significant chance that the disco owner will lose the case.
This, however, is a stiff and bureaucratic way to go about things. If ‘discrimination’ is really such a big problem, there would be a business opportunity for others to run discotheques where discrimination is guaranteed not to take place, while others can be run with full rights of the owners to refuse any individual for no specific reason.
The common sense of common people
One of the main reasons that discotheque owners and others choose to refuse certain guests is that they don’t “play by the rules” — that is, they don’t act reasonably in line with the behavior he and most guess expect, leading to difficult situations, conflicts and possibly even to violence in places which should be secure for everyone.
The question is: Who gets to set the rules?
The answer used to be: The landlord.
In days past, the word of the patron was final. Now, in these times of cultural relativism and ‘cultural enrichment’, this right is no longer a given. Customers who feel unfairly treated increasingly take recourse to the law, using anti-discrimination laws to undermine the right of the business owners to enforce rules of conduct.
This is bad, for common people have common sense of rules of conduct that cannot be codified into law. Coherence in our societies is based on common, sensible rules that are largely respected. When the law is used to suppress the private exercise of rules of conduct, an important source of civilized behavior, the common citizen, is cut off. Though it happens in the name of ‘non-discrimination’, the long-term disruptive effects on our societies is likely to be detrimental.
The article continues:
Discrimination
The equal rights commission clearly decided that the Turk as well as his wife were discriminated against. With this verdict in hand, Family B. ultimately went to civil court and sued for damages. The trial is ongoing.
Daniela Grabovac of Helping Hands knows that this was not an isolated incident for Family B. “On the contrary, it is the same as always in the ordinary course of things: immigrants are not allowed into discos. Except the excuses have improved in the meantime, and proof becomes more and more difficult.” In 2009 alone, she has had ca. 50 complaints, “but many do not come to us.”
No one was prepared to comment on behalf of the disco Fledermaus.
We can expect similar (successful) lawsuits to follow in the near future, though not for Mr. Maier.
While anti-discrimination laws are originally well intentioned, with the European history of anti-Semitism in the background, the examples above show they have now come to a point where they are repressive, not protective of the freedom of European citizens. Likes and dislikes, attraction and revulsion are natural features of human life, and cannot be legislated away. The immediate risk from the frivolous application of anti-discrimination law is that certain ethnic groups are effectively granted impunity to behave in ways normally considered socially unacceptable.
We can expect an increase in cases like this, where anti-discrimination and anti-racism groups misuse the power granted them by overly broad laws to coerce businessmen and others out of reacting sensibly to bad behavior. A ‘license to misbehave’, granted to Arabs and other ethnic groups, can only cause an increase in actual racism, a problem that no amount of state coercion can cure. If this path is followed, unruly vigilante groups may form in response. This is not a good way.
What we really need is the opposite: Repeal the broad anti-discrimination laws and focus on laws that deal with actual physical crimes: Threats, violence, damaging property and the like. Removing the legal stigmatization of ‘racist’ will permit the common sense of common people to sort out the small conflicts in daily life. While such a reform would disempower ‘anti-discrimination’ groups and constitute a snub to the European Union, it would — much more significantly — restore power to where it belongs in a democracy: the citizens at large.
97 comments:
Discrimination is Civilization at its base. Discriminating against behaviors and beliefs that lead to undesireable societal effects. Progress. Without it, humans naturally regress. When any behavior leads to equal outcomes, because they are treated with equal respect and subsidized via the welfare state, then what you get is regression towards barbarism. Which is where the West is headed.
I recommend Theodore Dalrymples book, In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas 2007.
Also Evan Sayet lays it out pretty clearly in easy to follow terms here...
How Modern Liberals Think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
I think that most people would agree that it was a correct decision to deny these patrons entry to the premises provided that they had a history of disruptive and unruly behaviour. That’s just common sense. I think that most people would also agree that it was the right decision to deny them entry if they displayed aggressive or anti-social behaviour. But would it be OK to deny them entry if there was no such history, or if their behaviour were impeccable? Would it be acceptable to deny them entry based solely on their skin colour?
Do the municipal codes for business owners in Austria specifically say that it’s ok for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race and religion? And what about the national laws of Austria, do they stipulate that discrimination is acceptable and not a criminal offence?
Free enterprise does not mean that business owners can do whatever they like. There are certain rules that they need to obey and this should be made clear to them before they start up shop. A business owner can’t just simply set up a new business wherever and whenever he feels like it. There are certain criteria that need to be met before he can do so.
A nightclub owner for instance, needs to obtain a liquor licence before he can start allowing paying patrons into his club. He also needs to have a business licence. He needs to get the thumbs up from the fire inspectors, he needs to have adequate toilet facilities and he needs to obey the laws in regards to whom he serves alcohol to. He also needs to honour the opening hour laws drawn up by the local council. If these stipulate that he has to shut the doors at 2 o’clock in the morning then he can’t stay open until 4 o’clock. Nor can he serve alcohol to 14 year olds, or serve alcohol to patrons who are over intoxicated.
The point is that business owners can’t just make up their own laws as they see fit, they have to operate within the criteria of their operating licences and the local and national laws. Here’s another question, should Muslim taxi driver who refuse to accept Jewish customers or blind people with guide dogs lose their taxi permits or should they be allowed to choose their own customers? Or what about Somali taxi drivers in Minnesota, should they be allowed to refuse customers who are in the possession of alcohol, or should this be grounds for dismissal?
A verdict in St. Pölten is causing commotion in the disco scene: for the first time, a disco owner had to pay damages because a young man from St. Pölten was not allowed into the club because of his ethnic origin.
This could not get more Orwellian, or indeed Kafkaesque if they tried.
These clubs have been hauled over the coles for what some one may have been thinking??
As a Cop with 30 years experience, I see absolutely NO evidence here.
It reminds me of a case about three or four years back in the
U.K, when a muslim woman took a person to court, and won, "because the defendent looked at me in a racist manner".
What have our laws come to, when we can be prosecuted because "some one thought we were thinking something"?
Talk about "doublethink"!
But would it be OK to deny them entry if there was no such history, or if their behaviour were impeccable?
That would constitute bad business and therefore be counterproductive for the nightclub owner.
The real problem here, though, is that immigrants tend to behave in ways that are both rude and racist. That doesn't go down well with other visitors.
The point is that business owners can’t just make up their own laws as they see fit, they have to operate within the criteria of their operating licences and the local and national laws.
The laws, as they are on the books now and being used by the courts, are totalitarian, in the strict sense of the word. This is deeply harmful and needs to be fixed - unfortunately, the EU oligarchy is setting out to make it worse.
This is an excellent piece of commentary, the crux of which, in my view, is the following:
"This is a matter of principle. In a purely free society, any business owner — any individual, in fact — would be free to decide who he’d do business with and who he’d reject, without providing any justification for his choices."
~While I agree with this statement in its entirety, it must be added that, in the free marketplace of ideas, it is not in the businessperson's interest to set arbitrary rules - not that he has done so in this case - nor is it in his interest to have unreasonable ones, in which case his business will suffer because patrons will react badly to it. It's important to note the balance inherent in the idea of freedom of association; one is free to discriminate as long as one accepts this may not prove popular!
It's interesting to note how discrimination laws, or judicial decisions on the matter, can also harm business owners with regard to their own hiring policies. Not too long ago, a British hair salon where workers were supposed to have trendy hairdos was sued (initially for £ 15.000, then later for £ 34.000) by a head-tent-wearing mahoundian because of her hurt feelings over not being hired. It was certainly not in the interest of that salon owner to hire anyone whose jihadist-breeding appearance would ruin the modern image intended to be a trademark of that business when it was opened. Yet British judges decided otherwise. Could the same go for beard-, robe and cap-wearing mahoundians applying for jobs at TGI Friday's one day? I wouldn't be surprised if it could, though I think such mahoundians would first sue for having to handle alcohol, not because of the flour sacks that they wear.
And it isn't just the overall appearance of workers in a business that can give its owner trouble. Mahoundian work ethic, lack of initiative (to work hard and do things right) and demands for special treatment also affect overall productivity and profitability of any business that hires adherents of that political ideology masquerading as a religion. As this case shows, a company in Colorado was forced to add mahoundian foot baths, bidets and sex-segregated prayer rooms to its facilities, in addition to providing schedule changes that included paid zebibah-making breaks and accommodation for their fasting madness.
And would those demands stop there? As the Baron noted in his essay Barking up the Wrong Tree, once mahoundians get permission for head-tents in the work place, why would they be satisfied with that, instead of moving on to demanding that burqas and niqabs be allowed too? And who can guarantee that penis-possessing mahoundians wouldn't eventually demand that their non-mahoundians female coworkers tent themselves too, since the former don't (yet) have the legal right to rape the latter with impunity for the fact that they don't follow dressing guidelines set by sura 33:59?
This is very strange. I'm getting a bad case of deja vu!
Actually, discrimination is the source of the survival of a people or a culture. If a group of people is unwilling to discriminate against another group of people, it will go extinct. A culture that is unwilling to discriminate against others, it will get eaten out by those that are willing to discriminate since they will free ride on the one that is unwilling while discriminate with their altruism. It's simple game theory here. Besides this, the only incentive for someone to integrate is being discriminated against if he doesn't integrate.
kristisk, the reason why someone is unwilling to do business with another person is irrelevant considering. In this case, the owner can deny entry to someone simply because they have a crooked nose. It's irrelevant why he does it, he owns the business and can choose his customers however he likes. In the same way, women going in for free(which means men pay their way when they go in since the costs are a burden only on the men) is irrelevant since the owner simply makes a business choice. If you don't like it, go shop somewhere else. And yes, free enterprize means that business owners, employees and customers can discriminate based on whatever they like. The fact that free enterprize doesn't exist in Europe or the Anglo world is a different thing. Actually, if you follow this on it's logical extreme, you should allow everyone in your house, since discriminating against people that aren't from your family(which share a genetic closeness to you, just like the member from your ethnic group) is wrong.
And no, taxi drivers shouldn't be allowed to refuse customers, unless that's the policy of the company. The taxi company should be able to choose it's customers. If drivers do this against company policy, they'll just get fired though. About 14 years olds, they're under the age of consent so it's a stupid case and it's not the problem of the government anyway - they have a family for a reason. Here you can buy booze even if you're 14 and it's illegal, yet we don't find teenagers passed out drunk on the streets. I saw this in London.
Viking, yes, it would lead to a loss of business, but one needs to balance things out. It's called segmentation, actually. The guy might run a disco simply for a certain ethnic group and those who want to be among themselves will go there.
It's funny to me that people don't realize that our problems come from this discrimination is bad thing and we have no idea who we are(idea countries). Islam is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
from the First Dibs column
Mr. Shadowes arrived dragging his manhoundian obsession behind him
I thought that manhoundian obsession and it's affects was what this entire blog was about?
Isn't it?
This disco discrimination thing is one of the oldest grudges of extra-European immigrants and their supporters in France. It is widely held to be a major proof of the country's racism.
However, one question I have never, ever seen raised, whenever the subject is discussed in the media, is : why on earth do disco owners discriminate against immigrants ? (The fact they they do is not really disputed, although there is no hard data to support it.)
I mean, the main objective of a disco is to make money, right ? Not to promote some particular political worldview which might be tainted with ethnic notions ? Does anyone, even "anti-racists", challenge the fact that the reason a disco owner is in the business is to make money, lots of it ?
If one admits that, why should a disco boss actually pay wages to its bouncers in order to bar bona fide customers with good money in their pockets, ready to part with it ?
Not only this question never gets answered in the French media ; it's never even raised.
I can see but two possibilities. One has to admit it : a disco is mainly a trading place for sex.
Existing customers of French descent, whether men or women, may resent the fact that immigrants are allowed to participate in this trade ; they do not want to trade sex with them, or are distraught by the possibility that the opposite sex might be allowed to do so in their presence.
Or, it might be that immigrants have a habit of behaving in discos in a manner which is disruptive, obnoxious and disrespectful of the local norms of courtship.
Both are probably true. If so, admitting immigrants would have the immediate effect of repelling local clients. This would just be another version of white flight. Immigrants are a minority. Therefore excluding them is a sound business decision.
Please note that the alternative, i.e. forcing disco owners to admit immigrants, means that the state is deciding that the indigenous French must agree to a degree of sexual intercourse with immigrants. You're not even allowed to chose your own mate any more. I don't think Hitler went that far.
This, of course, is the implied logic behind all the peans to "métissage" (miscegenation) with which the media and political discourse are chock full.
One could also ask this question : if extra-European immigrants suffer so much from discrimination by existing discos, why don't they open a few of their own, where they would be gladly admitted, and free to discriminate themselves against whomever they wish ?
This big disco taboo is one more proof that "racism" is, first and foremost, about sex. And therefore survival. That's the elephant in the room.
We know how Christian and Muslim notions about relations between the sexes are incompatible. We know how Islam refuses the survival of other peoples.
It's obvious where disco discrimination comes from. It's obvious it's a good thing, too.
Clearly, anti-discrimination laws are very difficult for the accused, since he has the burden of proof. The plaintiff only needs to assert that he has been discriminated against. No actual proof is required.
I have sometimes wondered if it is possible for the disco owner to circumvent the anti-discrimination laws. They could, of course, try to disguise the disco night an invitation only event. Then it would be legitimate to exclude less desirable customers, since they have not been invited.
Robert, everything is about reproduction, actually. But yes, obviously moving the immigrants into your face all the time is about the mestisaje thing.
Anyway, non-discrimination isn't only not good, it's actually immoral. Caring about your own people more is natural. Saying it's out of prejudice or hate(racism) it's like saying that a mother loves his own child more out of prejudice and she should love all children equally. This is non-discrimination taken to the extreme since family relations are based on genetic closeness, just like ethnic groups. If discrimination is immoral in one case, it's immoral in both. Obviously, liberalism thrives due to unprincipled exceptions, combining non-discrimination and universal healthcare without making a worldwide universal healthcare system funded by the people in the rich countries. This works in the same way with non-discrimination alone. Most would see it as a stupid farce if family relations would be prejudice and hate of non-relatives. lol
The received explanation about discrimination at nightclubs (or eslewhere) is "racism".
-- Why do nightclubs discriminate against immigrants ?
-- Because they are racist.
But this does not explain anything. This is equivalent to saying : they discriminate because they discriminate.
The interesting question is : why do they discriminate ? Why are they "racist" ?
"Racism" in not a mental condition or a crime, as "anti-racists" would have us believe. It is a perfectly rational and legitimate decision.
"Racism" may induce a crime, if you commit a crime against a person because you do not like his race.
If you kill a Jew (or 6 million of them), or a Black, or whomever, just because you do not like their race, then it's murder. It's a crime. (As opposed to the case where this is done in self-defense, of course.)
But it's the murder which is criminal. Not the "racism" that led to it.
If I kill someone in order to rob him, because of greed, no tribunal in his right mind (except a religious one) would convict me for the crime of "greed". Greed might be a motive. It's not a crime by itself.
Ditto for "racism".
If you don't want to invite someone into your home, or rent him a flat, or hire him, or sell him a pass to enter your business premises, then it's obviously not a crime. It's just your perfectly legitimate right.
"Human rights" campaigners obviously support double standards here.
I want to add here a solution to the "discrimination" problem that was found by Danish nightclub owners. Henrik didn't mention it for some reason, even though he's Danish.
The Danish owners had the same problem with young Muslims in their nightclubs that everyone else does -- they tend to get too drunk too early, act in a loud and aggressive manner, hit on women even when the ladies explicitly refuse their attentions, pick fights with natives in packs, etc.
Denmark has the same kind of anti-discrimination laws that the rest of the EU has, so the nightclub owners were stuck. However, the Danes are a practical people, and are known for their ingenuity.
The solution? The owners instituted sniffer dogs. For "security reasons", mind you. There was no discrimination -- everyone who wanted to enter a club had to be sniffed by the dog at the entrance. If you objected to being nosed by a dog, you could go somewhere else.
This cut down considerably on the number of predatory young Muslim men among nightclub patrons.
The rest of Europe is not as reasonable a place as Denmark, and would undoubtedly have passed laws declaring that the use of sniffer dogs violated the rights of Muslims to observe their religious customs without hindrance. So this solution is probably only workable in Denmark.
Henrik didn't mention it for some reason, even though he's Danish.
I simply didn't know. Great idea!
Baron Bodissey. I presume you have heard about the problems some police forces are having, when using sniffer dogs in "musöim houses"?
That they must have these "bootie" things on their feet, (like surgeons overshoes for dogs) and I believe in Britain that some forces have actualy banned the use of sniffer dogs in "muslim houses and VEHICLES(!), completely!
Henrik R Clausen said...
Henrik didn't mention it for some reason, even though he's Danish.
I simply didn't know. Great idea!
Did any one ever see the news piece/doccumentary, where a police force (France, if I remember) used a Truffle hunting pig, as a drug sniffer?
Now.....:-))
Henrik --
It may be because you're in Aarhus, and the story was about nightclubs in Copenhagen.
Kepiblanc wrote the report for GoV here.
Here's another idea, courtesy of Kepiblanc: "Refurbish all the discotheques. Use swine-leather upholstery on all furniture, bars and doorknobs."
Furor --
Yes, I'm very familiar with the British police and their dog-booties.
Britain would never allow sniffer dogs to sully the purity of Muslims with their noses. The Brits are the first to cave in to any demands for special treatment by Muslims.
Robert, it's funny but in my city we have a lot of clubs open, some quite cool, but they always get overran by idiots after a while and the people who made them cool leave. Me and my friends found a way to avoid this(it helps that I have friends who have turntables, mixers and stuff) - rent a villa for the weekend if we're a lot of people, buy food and booze and party it up! It's a lot more fun too since not many clubs are near a lake or have pool tables inside. Also, we get cheap booze, not club prices one. It sucks that we have festivals and whole sea side places that became horrible for a lot of people due to the influx of the other people. This is part of the reason why we just go to Greece or Bulgary for summer vacations(combined with my government butchering tourism).
Baron, here you just get your teeth kicked in if you pick on the natives... unless you have knives or swords in your car, then it gets ugly and everybody tries to make a quick exit from the scene. My friends almost fought some Russian people because a guy tripped and hit one of my friends by mistake and they couldn't understand what they're saying, until one of my Russian speaking friends made the situation clear. Before the cops came they were buddies. lol
Heh. I simply don't visit night clubs much :)
Back on topic, I want to voice an opinion on 'racism' before we fall into the fallacy of abstracting away the existence of any sort of problem. I believe that our foolish, overly broad anti-racism laws are a poor attempt at addressing something else:
Threats against specific groups, be it Jews, gays or gypsies. Credible threats are generally in violation of the law, and I think this can well be applied to this problem as well. Specifically that acts - and that can include speech - that constitute credible threats against particular groups should be punishable.
Take some nutty Islamist/Nazi preacher who denigrates Jews as descendants of apes, pigs or rats, and thereby justifies assaults on them. He should be held responsible if he holds authority in his field and was motivating random attacks against Jews. Then, executing the attacks in real life is more directly criminal, and one should look for messages in such crimes, for instance in context of the so-called 'honour killings' (in reality family executions), and punish appropriately.
'Racism' is a flawed legal concept and should be removed from the laws, along with 'hate crime'. We could possibly use 'message crime' or similar instead. Look for the message constituting a credible threat, possibly against thousands or millions. If it's there, punish appropriately - otherwise, let free citizens live free.
As for circumventing the bad laws already on the books: I don't think that's a good option. They need to be understood for what they are - totalitarian - and repealed.
Actually, it's simple - stop forcing people to live together with people they don't like and this stuff will get avoided. And yes, prosecute incitement to criminal activity - this is already a crime.
Freighting the word “discrimination” with negative connotations is a sterling example of Politically Correct thought control. The basic ability to distinguish between right and wrong represents a devastating threat to those who would have us muddle through a world drearily illuminated by “infinite shades of gray”.
Consider that some academicians currently seek to abolish the grading system as it supposedly causes a negative impact upon the self-esteem of those who do not receive passing grades. This is Social Promotion run amok. George Orwell rightly anticipated all of this with his invention of Newspeak. Those who have not read Orwell’s appendix to his magnum opus, “1984”, are urged to do so on the strongest possible terms. His predictions have a resonance with current affairs that is as chilling as it is prescient. A single example will serve to illustrate this entire debacle over discrimination.
In Newspeak, something positive is labeled, “good”. Something even better is labeled “plus good”. While something that is excellent is “double plus good”. Conversely, something bad is “ungood”. That which is even worse is “plus ungood” and the very worst is “double plus ungood”.
It is critical to note how the entire spectrum of very worst to most excellent is described using only variants of the word "good". "Bad" no longer exists. Consequently, no matter how bad something is, it still remains, perforce, in the realm of that which is “good”. Once the duality of useful polar opposites has been decoupled, a dangerous homogeneity emerges that easily swamps dissent and differing opinion.
Thus has Politically Correct Newspeak eliminated the ability to discriminate between “good” and “bad”. It is left to the reader’s imagination regarding just how deeply to this issue’s core go recent attempts to demonize the entire concept of discrimination.
Now, contemplate just how severe this assault upon reason becomes when an attempt is made to prohibit not just prejudice but the entire concept of race itself. The taxpayer financed German Institute for Human Rights has submitted a position paper advocating elimination of the word “race” from Article 3 of that country’s constitution. Evidently, the EU has already declared itself against “race” in its legal language as well. As Brigitte Gabriel said, “dangerous and deadly”, indeed.
It is vital to remember that discrimination, prejudice and even racism are not inherently illegal by themselves. Despite all attempts to do so, a philosophy or thought cannot be outlawed. The public practice of such conduct can most certainly be subject to legal curtailment but that is altogether different from seeking to change the very foundations of recognized language in an attempt to erode the entire concept and its place in human vocabulary.
All of this represents an out of control Nanny State where human rights are sacrificed upon the altar of Human Rights. This is Modern Liberalism devouring its young just as it always has. Perish the thought that conservatives might be a no-show at this panem et circenses. They, too, have long sought to do the impossible. Namely, to legislate morality.
What we really need is the opposite: Repeal the broad anti-discrimination laws and focus on laws that deal with actual physical crimes: Threats, violence, damaging property and the like.
The necessity of such sensible legislation automatically precludes it. Legal code of that sort would come down hardest upon those that “anti-discrimination” laws seek most to protect. Muslims and other victim-status minorities would be the most frequent respondents in the case of such enforcement and that would defeat the entire purpose of these “protective” measures.
The solution? The owners instituted sniffer dogs. For "security reasons", mind you. There was no discrimination -- everyone who wanted to enter a club had to be sniffed by the dog at the entrance. If you objected to being nosed by a dog, you could go somewhere else.
Baron, if bans on dogs on British and Swedish soil are enacted in the next few months, I would be strongly inclined to conclude that it will have been because our enemies read GoV to keep track of our discussions and moves such as this one.
The first nightclub case I believe was in Britain in the late 70s, involving a black man in a Birmingham nightclub... seems like a lot of the time Britain leads, the continent follows? If so, this doesn't bode too well for mainland Europe.
I have been refused admission to bars lots of times for "not being dressed right". Can I launch a claim?
Btw - I've also seen a fair bit of the "nightclub Jihad" by immigrants - some of it in Eastern European cities with near-zero immigration, of all places.
Great article. Thanks for your thoughts. I absolutely agree with every point you made. The thing that frustrated me most, which is hard to define, is that they were able to award punitive damages. You're exactly right. How can they quantify such a thing?
If the plaintiffs weren't so money hungry, perhaps they'd say to themselves, "Maybe I should find another Disco because I don't like this one." Instead they have a pity party for themselves, fueling their sense of entitlement. They're acting like children who didn't get invited to a birthday party. Sack up and go somewhere else, you panzies!!
Back to the "damages," how do they figure that the plaintiff was owed anything? Had he been allowed in, he would have spent money there. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because it's just counterintuitive to me.
Things must change. This age of "PC-ness" is bull.
RV,
Of course free enterprises can’t do exactly what they like. They still have to comply with certain ethic and legal codes.
For instance a company can’t be involved in insider trading, fraud and price fixing. Nor can they set up shop wherever they feel like it. Just because a company has managed to secure a block of land in a residential area doesn’t mean that they can operate a landfill on it. There are certain zoning rules that they need to abide by.
It’s the same case with a restaurant/nightclub owner. They still have to comply with the criteria set out by the council when they’re issued a restaurant licences. On one those criteria being that you can’t refuse patrons access on the basis of race or religion.
Sure a restaurant owner can ‘discriminate’ against certain patrons, if you insist to use that word, based on dress code, behaviour, state of intoxication and age. What they can’t do is to discriminate based on race. If they do so they’ve violated the criteria of their operating licences and the council would be in a position to issue them with a fine or to revoke the licence.
If you as a restaurant owner don’t wish to serve certain types of people, the way to go would be to open up an exclusive private membership club on a country estate, where memberships are distributed on the restaurant owners own discretion.
And I don’t see a difference with this scenario compared to the scenario I described in my first post in which taxi drivers discriminate against certain ethnicities and handicaps. Both of them are discriminating on the basis of race and personal preferences.
The taxi drivers are in that particular case violating the criteria of their taxi permits and the nightclub owners are violating the criteria of their restaurant licences. Which I might add both groups were made aware of before they were issued with these licences.
I'm strapped for time... but the real discrimination is of our own doing.
And it's entirely a cultural thing.
For example, I remember when music and dancing up in the hills of Piedmont meant the feast of the local patron saint. Everybody, young and old was there and millionaire entrepreneurs would find themselves dancing with their stern old teachers, the same ones who used to call them good-for-nothings.
Now the kids up in those same hills ignore the saints (and the local wine and cheeses and other goodies) and segregate themselves inside discos the size of airport terminals. They guzzle down fancy cocktails, pop ecstasy pills, boogie to specially tailored foreign music and when the mega-jungle-beat sound system starts to play Bach, signifying to all except the most whacked out that it's 5 in the morning and the fun is over and it's time to pile into the special municipally-sponsored bus for the "safe" ride back home, they stagger out randomly kissing and groping each other.
Society caters to all the self-discrimination and self-segregation. Companies thrive on everything that disunites. No wonder that the government enforces so many idiotic rules to keep people together. The whole culture is one of marginalization, groups, minorities, subgroups, gangs, emos, homos, goths, nerds and the more the less merry.
Today's govt. oppression is nothing but a replacement for the self-regulating and far more virtuous religious culture that was cast aside (due to better and more enlightened ideas), a culture in which "crap" like diversity, inclusiveness, community spirit and all of today's leftwing baloney was actually real, and not bad at all.
Now it's all political: yet another case of religion chucked out the window and sneaking back, in its most miserable and vindictive form through the rear door.
It is always poor culture which makes stupid laws necessary and in turn those stupid laws further impoverish culture. A downward spiral until the laws must per force be ignored (too many exceptions, contradictions, absurdities)... and real life regains the upper hand.
It can be said that discrimination is reason itself and to outlaw discrimination is to outlaw reason and good judgment along with or in order to get at alleged bad judgment. Yet one must discriminate to make that distinction and distinguish between good and bad anything.
The Bible calls for discrimination between the holy and profane, good and evil, just and unjust, modern effete usurpers want to outlaw distinction and.therefore outlaw the use of reason which by its very laws of operation sifts and separates and categorizes all for our benefit. So thinking independently is now considered a crime and dangerous the state will tell you what to think.
Green Infidel said...
seems like a lot of the time Britain leads, the continent follows? If so, this doesn't bode too well for mainland Europe.
The trouble is, that you will NEVER convince the Brits that it is not "the laws coming from Brussels" that cause the "problems" in the U.K.
They are, to a great majority, willing to see the E.U as "the great Satan", and ignore, or dissmiss, the fifth comlumn in their midst.
Green Infidel, a couple of summers ago I went clubbing with a friend and we were both wearing tanktops. I was allowed in, he wasn't. Apparently the club discriminates against men, since tanktops are ok as long as they're on women. :P
kristisk, free enterprises can do whatever they like in terms of selecting who they do business with. If they can't, they're not free. Like this we can say that people are free in communist societies, they just have to follow the law. Who cares that the law doesn't let you speak your mind, for example? In the same sense, we call free speech now, the censored political correct, non-hate speech variety. That's not free. There's a difference in between free and unfree and European businesses can't even choose who to do business with. If I couldn't choose who I would have sexual intercourse, would I be a free person in that matter or not? Because by your logic, if a government passes a bill that I'm not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion or race, I'm still free.
By the way, the whole idea that you need licences to do things shows that there's no free enterprize. lol. If I had to get a licence to speak, would I have free speech?
And you don't see the difference because you don't seem to understand business or economics. There's a difference in between an employee discriminating and a company as a matter of policy. An employee is hired to do what the company asks him to do, what he believes is irrelevant and he should be fired if he doesn't do his job. But again, want to bet that if they fire him because he refuses the fairs of Jews he will sue because he got discriminateed against?
RV, you seem to be totally incapable of grasping that you need to get several different licences before you can go ahead and open up a restaurant. You might believe that it’s just a matter of going out and renting some premises and start opening the doors and serving alcohol to paying patrons, but believe me that is not how it works. Have another look at my first post and you’ll see that I’ve listed some of the requirements that need to be met before you can open up your own place.
And no, these licence requirements are not draconic requirements imposed on business owners by evil Governments officials who seek to undermine free speech and religious freedom. Do you seriously suggest that these requirements should be scrapped and that everyone who wants to should be allowed to open up a restaurant wherever and whenever he wants to?
I’m going to make this short and sweet because I’ve already explained it in two other posts.
A restaurant licence is a sought after document. It’s not a human right to own such a licence. Councils give it to certain businesses, so that these businesses can open up places where members of the public can go and eat and enjoy a drink.
Now here’s the main point that you seem incapable of grasping;
These licences come with certain strings attached, one of them being that you as the owner can’t discriminate/refuse people entry based on their race or religion. If you do that you violate the terms of your licence and you could be fined or have your licence revoked. Is that really so hard for you to understand? You would also be in violation of the terms of your licence if you allowed minors into your club and served them alcohol.
Am I getting through to you here?
A restaurant/nightclub discriminating against a person based on his ethnicity is not the same as say a building contractor not taking on a client who wants a house built, because the contractor doesn’t want the job or doesn’t feel that the client is trustworthy. Is it that hard for you to understand?
And by the way I’m self-employed running my own business, something I’ve done for more than 6 years now. My business is also quite successful, so yes I do think I know a little bit about business and economics.
There should be freedom of association, meaning any individual or group should be recognized as having inalienable rights to associate or disassociate as they please.
The government itself has no inalienable right to make laws governing such matters, it is unconscionable that it should ever think it does.
Robert Marchenior nailed it above when he said that racism is not illegal and may or may not lead to any actual crime.
Yet again the government cannot simply make anything a crime that some people wish.
Freedom is always better. Free enterprise, freedom of association, free speech, always better. Everyone should have to truly learn to adopt, adapt and better respect the values of others and learn from discrimination to choose a better path.
For example if I do not wish to rent my facilities to a homosexual couple then there are others who will and if it becomes an obstacle and hardship to get a place as a gay person then that person should learn to not act gay and offend or bother others. The gay person must respect others wishes and control the behaviour and be discreet, and thus overcome. That is true freedom, learning to adapt and respect the way.
Similarly a Christian or whomever must learn to accept that some people won't like his Christian ethics and love for good and hate for evil, accordingly in a true free society we must learn how to make friends of others, make peace and win over others not force them to falsely accept us. Non acceptance in a business results in opportunity for a niche market catering to a speciic groups needs. Now we have so called tolerance and acceptance but no real tolerance or acceptance, everyone is suing each other and trying to deny each other rights.
Michael Servetus said...
Yet again the government cannot simply make anything a crime that some people wish.
Freedom is always better. Free enterprise, freedom of association, free speech, always better. Everyone should have to truly learn to adopt, adapt and better respect the values of others and learn from discrimination to choose a better path.
So. Where IS this utopian world?
Governments PURPOSE is to make laws. And EVERY law restricts SOMEONE.
That is virtualy the deffinition of law.
What DOES have to be decided is, do the majority find that restriction good or bad?
The problem we, in the West at least, have today, is that Governments that pay lip service to this democratic principal, are more and ever more, making laws at the behest of MINORITIES. The actual majorities, that voted them in, are not even getting consulted.
(Change of Banking law in the U.K for example to accomodate a mere 4% of the population who claim to be muslim. I presume I do not have to point out animal cruelty laws and "halal" meat here.)
In fact, they invented a new tactic, JUST for the purpose of supressing the majority;
"If they are against it Scream "Nazi" at them until you are either sick on your sandles, OR they give up and go home.
With their paying off, of the media to follow "the party line", it is working.
Furor T,
I'm not sure you understood my meaning, though maybe you did.
Of course I do not deny the great benefit of laws and restrictions but yes what is in dispute is what we make laws about and fair representation.
As to where this Utopia exists I say it has existed most fully here in the United States where it has begun to wane and corrode through the introduction of foreign ideas.
Both the antidote and disease are in education, which is why talk and political emphasis about education is a nonsense unless we identify moral evil and corruption and the type of education that is desirable and necessary for Western civilization to continue according to a conservative vision, preserving what is best and most excellent.
The faulty uncritical instruction of unamerican political and economic philosophies, to a generation of kids unprepared to process them has resulted in that generation being brainwashed by them, as opposed to learning how not to think and rejecting them.
Michael Servetus said...
unless we identify moral evil and corruption and the type of education that is desirable and necessary for Western civilization to continue according to a conservative vision, preserving what is best and most excellent.
Whoe's "morals"?
Morals and religion have no place in education, outside of the family.
MY morals come from the Havamal.
Are THEY the same as yours?
But WE were in Europe for THOUSANDS of years before the christians.
kristisk, a company that can't choose their customers isn't a free enterprize, just as much as a person who can't speak their mind because their ideas aren't politically correct isn't having free speech. With your bastardization of what free means, people in my country had free speech under communism - they just had to not insult the party, leader, policies of the government or not talk well of capitalism, own banned literature and so on. I agree that it's illegal to choose the customers as you wish, but this just means that there's no free enterprize. This is what you don't get - free enterprize means that you can choose your clients, employees and so on as you see fit. If you can't, you don't have free enterprize.
And yes, a restaurant licence isn't a human right, but doing whatever you want with your property is. It's something called property rights. Also, your other examples are idiotic bastardizations of the subject. A person making a landfill on his property should be illegal because it hurts his neighbours and they should be able to sue him for damages if that happens(this is how things actually happened before all this regulation crap - things started to get ignored when the 'public good' prevailed and hurting other people was irrelevant as long as you did it for what the government thought it's ok, at least in the US).
I didn't have a problem with what you said from a legal point of view, it's just that you use terms in a bad way - in this case free enterprize. Normally, in a free enterprize setting, a business owner can choose to do business with whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants. It's an extension of property rights - doing whatever you want with your property as long as you don't damage the property of others(and in the case you do, they can sue you and recover the damage - this is the way pollution should be handled, actually).
For someone knowing so much about economics though, it's funny that you think you can spend your way out of recessions and borrow your way out of debt. You should try what you think it's good macroeconomic policy with your company. Go take out a loan and pay your employees three times more since this is the way you think nations get rich, your company should too. Here is some help for you:
free enterprise - Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.
regulation - A rule designed to control the conduct of those to whom it applies. Regulations are official rules, and have to be followed.
Oh, and since you are so fascinated with rights, one of the basic tenants of property rights is that you can exclude whoever you want from your property. Regulations that ban discrimination actually infringe the rights of people - the rights of the business owner to his property and the rights of the people who attend of freedom of association.
Rebellious Vanilla : free enterprise and libertarianism are relative, not absolute notions.
Otherwise you end up the same as a Communist, only the opposite.
I've read thousands of those discussions where the "real", orthodox libertarian keeps defaulting to the "korrect" version of the dogma, insisting that anything less is wrong and bad and stupid.
Things never happen this way in real life.
Let's take restaurants, since this is the current subject. Regulation and licensing, can you believe it, might sometimes be a good thing.
For instance, it's a good thing that most (all ?)developed countries have some form of regulation that prevent restaurants from feeding poisonous food to their unsuspecting customers.
It's a good thing that most (all ?) developed countries have some regulations that prevent architects, builders and promoters to sell you a house which will crumble upon you the minute you set foot inside.
The whole issue is making sure that you're not overdoing it with regulations, thus stifling initiative and creating conflicts of interest with a large class of civil servants. It's a question of how much and how far.
And, no, it's not enough to know that you can go to another restaurant, or another builder, if you are not satisfied with the first one. You'd have a hard time doing that if you were dead in the first place.
And, no, it's not enough to know you can sue people. Dead men cannot sue anybody, and even if you did not die, lawyers are expensive, justice is slow and unreliable, and a society where everybody sues everybody at the slightest provocation is hellish to live in (think American lawyer jokes).
Let's get real for a minute. Can you name a single developed country which does not have some sort of regulation or licensing for restaurants, architects, builders, electricians, doctors... you name it ? I mean, a nice country, one you'd like to live in ? Not Zimbabwe or Baluchistan ?
If it's never been tried, it's probably because it's a bad idea. That's the basis for libertarianism, remember : natural law. Practices which have been tried and tested spontaneously by men throughout the centuries, and which have been proven to work. Not abstract, theoretical "rules" drawn up by some individual on a napkin, trying to impose them upon others because that's what the Good Book says (supposedly).
If you had cancer, would you be happy to live in a country where anyone would be allowed to advertise himself as a doctor even if he left school at the age of 16 ?
Come on...
RV, I think you have misunderstood what the word “free enterprise” really means. Free enterprise does not imply that a business owner is “free” to do whatever he likes without having any form of restrictions placed upon him by the state or the market. The word “free” in “free enterprise” refers to a financial system where private individuals have the opportunity to start up their own “enterprises”. The word “free enterprise” can just as easily be substituted with the word “Capitalism” or a “free market economy”.
Like I just mentioned, it grants private individuals the right to start up their own businesses and it recognises that a market driven economy is a better option than the absence of such an economy, which of course was the case with your own country Romania until the fall of communism.
That’s what the word free enterprise refers to. It doesn’t mean that somehow the business owner can just make up the rules as he sees fit. There are no modern economies that have a completely unregulated business sector without any accountability to the State or the market. There are and will always be certain limitations imposed on businesses, but that of course doesn’t mean that the business and business owners aren’t somehow free.
And of course business are free to chose whom they wish to do business with, it’s just that in this particular case, the nightclub owner can’t refuse entry to a person on the basis of race or religion, simply because certain limitations have been imposed on that particular industry. Just like there are certain other limitations that they have to honour, such as who they can serve alcohol to based on level of intoxication, age and behaviour.
Quote from you;
“And yes, a restaurant licence isn't a human right, but doing whatever you want with your property is. It's something called property rights.”
No, that’s incorrect. There are certain limitations as to what you can do to, and do on your own property. These limitations can easily be found if you have a look through the local municipal zoning laws.
Another quote from you;
“For someone knowing so much about economics though, it's funny that you think you can spend your way out of recessions and borrow your way out of debt.”
RV, please don’t attribute baseless claims like this to me. It’s bad taste and it’s a bad debating technique.
I recommend the reading of Hans-Hermann Hoppe to understand the true essence of property rights, unlike the phony version of it we have today:
The Right To Exclude -- It's the essence of liberty and property, and the answer to the immigration problem.
Robert, I'm not a libertarian and I don't consider myself one. And you are taking a stupid road - the one to make examples that don't have anything to do with it. Restaurants should be able to sell poison, if they tell their clients their food is poison. I mean, nobody would do it since they'd have no clients, but selling something as something else is a crime and is called fraud. In this case, it's also a criminal matter, not one of regulation. There's no regulation preventing me from poisoning my friends when they come over to my place either. It's a criminal matter. About architects, if someone is willing to buy a house that will crumble, it's their problem - if it's sold as a house that won't crumble, then it's fraud and the builders should go to jail. Also, if the house crumbles on someone that passes on the street, the owner should be completely liable of what happened - manslaughter or damages.
The points you make are actually funny because it's like saying we shouldn't try murderers and rapists because the victims are already dead or raped. This is just a disincentive - if you throw fraudsters and people who kill through their negligence in jail... Game theory 101. And the lawyer society in the US is actually created by the stupid laws and regulations of the US government. And justice is slow and unreliable because Europe is horrible justice wise. Look at other places to see effectiveness. About unreliable, you realize that the same courts enforce government regulation, right? They're reliable only sometimes?
Also, it wasn't tried because, for example, lawyers and doctors have an interest to hike their prices up and they do this by limiting the supply of labour in their work field. The AMA is actually a great example of this and one of the reasons why healthcare is expensive. And I would ask my doctor for his credentials - actually this is how sane people choose doctors. Even with licensing, people ask about their doctors. And by the way, since you say that things have been tried and proven to work - this licence frenzy is a new thing that came about in the late 19th, early 20th century.
kristisk, you praised the stimulus crap over at Mangan's or did you forget about it? I think it was before we talked about healthcare. Anyway, about free enterprise, a free market economy is one where the government doesn't regulate it. There's a difference in between a free market economy and a market economy. What you describe is a market economy, not a free market. And free enterprise is what I said - it's actually the text book definition of it.
And no, the business can't do business with whoever he wants. If he doesn't want to do business with Asians, it's his choice to do so. If he'd be free to choose his customers and not be forced to serve people he doesn't want to have business relations with, he would be able to not allow admission to Asians.
And yes, I am correct. Property rights give you the right to exclude people from your property merely on the whim that you don't want them there. Stop quoting only a part of what I say to misinterpret my idea. I won't go into municipal zoning laws since it's beyond the point here. Basically, you infringe the nightclub owners right to admit only who he wants on his property at the threat of the loss of his lively hood. If you remove all the nice ideological talk, this is what you're doing. lol. Also, you can make the case that they shouldn't serve drunk people since they can't consent to a business transaction or to underage people for the same reason, but threatening someone with the loss of his business because he doesn't want to deal with certain people and that tickles your silly morality is laughable.
ConservativeSwede, Hans Hermann Hoppe is a really cool read. He makes the mistake to think that all people are as smart as him and that a society like he envisions works - one without a government. I don't get libertarians and ancaps and why they don't understand that life without a government simply won't exist. It's a needed nuisance, sadly.
kristisk, I'm wondering - what if the government bans employment of non-white people? Will you be willing to defend their right to tell businesses that they can't hire non-whites and how the business owners must conform to the ethics designed by the regulations?
And of course business are free to chose whom they wish to do business with, it’s just that in this particular case, the nightclub owner can’t refuse entry to a person on the basis of race or religion, simply because certain limitations have been imposed on that particular industry.
Wow, such a beautiful defense of a sick order. And oh the double speak. They are free, but not free... Of course, as the GoV article shows, the night club owner is not entitled to refuse people of certain race or religion for any reason; these people have special protection rights in this sick order.
A truly free society is a society where a taxi company is not permitted to discriminate against whom they employ. We'll end up with Muslims driving most of the cabs (just look around you). Now the police warns girls against taking taxi home. I remember the days when the police recommended girls to take taxi home, and warned against walking home late at night. Either way they risk being raped as it is today. In this society they had better stay at home and put a burka on. This is a truly free society! How wonderful liberalism is, and how liberating for women! Freedumb, freedumb!
RV,
ConservativeSwede, Hans Hermann Hoppe is a really cool read. He makes the mistake to think that all people are as smart as him and that a society like he envisions works - one without a government. I don't get libertarians and ancaps and why they don't understand that life without a government simply won't exist. It's a needed nuisance, sadly.
I agree with every word you say.
CS, girls just need to take cabs home. Just that those that have drivers of a similar ethnic background - this is what most girls do in my country and at least me and my classmates are fairly open about our policy. Also, since we usually go out with friends we take cabs in groups or we ask one of our male friends to take the cab with us and it drives us home and then takes them home. It's just common sense - when I will have children, I will teach them the same policy. Obviously, if European cab drivers will be so rare, they'll be denied their request to have an European driver when they'd call for one because that's discriminatory and well, a company with European drivers? That's even more discriminatory. :P
Conservative Swede said..
“Wow, such a beautiful defense of a sick order. And oh the double speak. They are free, but not free... Of course, as the GoV article shows, the night club owner is not entitled to refuse people of certain race or religion for any reason; these people have special protection rights in this sick order.”
Yeah let’s just introduce apartheid in the US and Europe that would be really cool wouldn’t it Mr Svenska? Let’s bring back the good ole days of the south. One law for whites and another one for coloureds. Maybe we could even allow people to trade in slaves? And let’s also scrap the unnecessary and silly restrictions/limitations that are currently placed upon businesses. Wouldn’t it be cool for businesses to be able to sell nuclear bombs to Iran and Al Qaida, and to be able to run factories in the US and Europe and only have to pay some newly arrived sod from Bangladesh 1 dollar a day? Or even better wouldn’t it be cool if Norway bought up all the petrol stations in Sweden and stoppede selling petrol to Swedes?
Let’s also dispense with all the stupid zoning laws and building codes. If a business owner wishes to open up a brothel or an asylum centre next door to Conservative Swedes then that should be his prerogative. Why should he have to get an approval from the council to do so, that would be just be an infringement on his rights as a property owner/business owner.
And RV, if you still claim that I’ve defended the American stimulus packages over at Mangans, then please prove it. Otherwise you’re just guilty of malicious slander.
kritisk, here it is. That sounds like supporting the bailouts as sound economic policy to me(same part where you argued that the minimum wage makes people be paid more, not be unemployed, which is just supply and demand and productivity 101 - since you own a business, if the minimum wage was bigger than the revenues your employees bring you, would you still keep them hired?). By the way, I apologize if you took any or some of my statements personally. It wasn't my intent and I'm sorry if that happened.
And by the way, we do have one law for blacks and one for whites. It's called minority rights, which is actually giving priviledges to non-whites at the expense of white people. Ever heard of affirmative action, quotas, hate crimes and hate speech only for some groups? This debate wasn't even about governmental discriminatory policy, but it's the one of private individuals.
Also, you defy economics again with your Bangladeshi example - not to say the one about buying the petrol stations in Sweden. It's not like Swedes wouldn't open new petrol stations that do sell oil to Swedes and the ones bought by Norwegians would go out of business since they wouldn't have a market, right? Heck, even if Swedish petrol stations didn't want to sell oil to minorities in Sweden, someone would open up petrol stations that would and take that market share. Same with nightclubs - you just wouldn't see forced integration.
kritisk_borger said...
Yeah let’s just introduce apartheid in the US and Europe that would be really cool wouldn’t it Mr Svenska? Let’s bring back the good ole days of the south. One law for whites and another one for coloureds.
You miss the point that these lands BELONG to us. WE are the NATIVES here.
I pressume you MAY support native American rites to THEIR land. Do not deny US the same rights to OUR lands.
When in MY house, you WILL obey MY rules.
Perhaps difficult for an American land stealer to understand.
RV, you are deliberately distorting facts here. I have never defended the bailouts nor have I said that paying minimum wages would automatically lead to higher wages? (If that was what you were trying to say?)
What I did say was that one of the reasons why people in the west manage to improve their living standards after WW2 was as a result of improved working conditions and higher wages, among other things. This increased these workers spending power, which again led to a growth in overall business.
Regarding the stimulus packages, I stated that the ideas behind these were based on the same theories. However I did not say that I thought it was a brilliant idea to bail out greedy Wall Street bankers and Detroit car manufacturers.
I also mentioned that businesses normally tend to go bankrupt when consumers stop buying their products and services, which is very true indeed. Wouldn’t you say?
RV said..
“And by the way, we do have one law for blacks and one for whites.”
Well actually no we don’t. We only have one law. We do however have certain programs and incentives to encourage a higher percentage of ethnic minorities to participate in the work force. Which I take it from your post that you don’t agree with? But then again you don’t seem to have a problem that white bar owners discriminating against other races?
We also have laws against racial vilification. So in theory there should be nothing wrong with a white person taking a coloured individual to court if the white person feels that he’s been discriminated against.
RV said ..
“Also, you defy economics again with your Bangladeshi example”
Not really, out from a purely financial perspective it would make sense for the business owner to pay as little as possible to manufacture certain goods and sell them for the highest obtainable price, provided that there is an unlimited supply of labour. That’s the only reason why so many western companies have relocated to India and Bangladesh. And this policy of unregulated and unrestricted business practice is also one that you’ve defended rigorously in your previous posts here on this thread.
And yes if you do have good workers working for you, it pays to look after them. If you don’t the competition is more than happy to snatch them up and you’re left without skilled people. That’s common business knowledge.
Furor Teutonicus, what about the black slaves that were brought over to America, is it also their land, or do they have to go “home” to Africa?
If you call what the state is now demanding "lack of discrimination" you get a better sense of the foolishness going on.
The ability to discriminate based on one's experience is an important survival mechanism. In the West only, it is being schooled out of young children by public education and flogged out of recalcitrant adults by government imposed rules and the legal system but very selectively.
The only people tried and found guilty of this new "crime" of discrimination are white Christians and/or property owners. Nowhere else does a country or culture seek to cripple its natives and most productive citizens this way.
kritisk_borger said...
Furor Teutonicus, what about the black slaves that were brought over to America, is it also their land, or do they have to go “home” to Africa?
Go to your local international airport. Then come back and tell us how long the queus of the decendents of black African "slaves", all desperate to "get home to Africa", are.
Ask Obama if he would rather be living in his tax payer funded luxury in Washington, or digging in the sand to catch enough maggots to feed his family every day. HOPING that the next tribe have not been sold a job lot of machettes.
Libertarianism isnt The Law of the Jungle.
There are some anarchist libertarians, but they are a small minority.
This misconception about libertarianism is pushed by the Marxist Left.
kritisk, greed comes with fear of loss. The problem is when moral hazards created by the government remove that fear of loss - and this is what caused 2008, combined with other moral hazards that lead to it. I won't go into it since it's offtopic here.
And I agree, the better living standards in the Western world come from working conditions and higher wages, which come from capital accumulation, not laws. The minimum wage has nothing to do with it and yes, businesses go bankrupt when consumers don't buy their products, but those consumers need to have the ability to pay for those goods. The problem isn't the bankruptcies, but the artificial boom fueled by debt, which lead to resources to be allocated in those businesses to begin with. The solution is to let those businesses go broke and start fresh.
And yes, it makes sense for a business to pay as little as possible and for an employee to ask as much as possible - this leads to the market setting the right price. If the employee would deserve more, he'd go to the competition. Businesses are moving because of them being inefficient here - we are chasing away the capital that made us have these living standards and if this continues, in the future Indians and Chinese will while we will do the crappy work. Capital improves efficiency and leads to bigger wages. They do what they do in India because they lack capital to do what we do. If they had a minimum wage as the one in Europe, the welfare and taxes and so on, they would be unemployed, they wouldn't have our living standards.
And yes, I disagree with laws that prop up other people at my expense in my own country. At best, you can argue for the majority not discriminating against the minorities and everybody to be treated on an individual basis. Or you have problems with discrimination only when it's done for white people at the expense of others and doing it against whites at the benefit of non-whites is peachy to you? And yes, I don't have a problem with bar owners(I don't see where the news said that the owner was white) discriminating against people. For example, when I was in London, I saw a shop that had a sign that they don't serve Romanians, which I found funny. I didn't really care, I just went next door.
And yes, white people can't sue for that. Those laws are done to protect minorities and women - court ruling, not my words.
Furor Teutonicus, there's no such thing as land stealing. Land is conquered - rights to land are based on military might. Anyway, kritisk isn't American, so your point is mute.
By the way, to prove my point about a white woman having the child of a non-white man being an evolutionary win, I'll have to say that kritisk proves my point. As you see, he is in favour of laws that will help my children with a man of another race at the expense of the child I would have with him. Also, the child would be part of the non-white community who helps itself, so the kid would benefit from the altruism of both groups, while if I would have a child with a white man, it wouldn't benefit of the altruism of neither.
It's like I tell men who pay a lot of taxes and women don't look at them since they're busy being single mothers - don't cry about it, you're already a father. Your tax money is maintaing their kids after all. Some indirect cuckolding never hurt anyone, I guess.
The whole "anti-discrimination" legal mechanism is an ideological tool specially created and designed to target, silence and take advantage on whites and to favor non-white minorities and/or immigrants.
Anybody who is not able to see this obvious truth is a hopeless idiot.
For example, if I want to be a member of Black Panthers, CAIR or La Raza, do you think I will be admitted on the basis of non-discrimination policies?
No, because the members of Black Panthers, CAIR or La Raza are so racially, religiously or culturally aware, that they will create an atmosphere to make me leave the moment I step over the threshold of their organizations. Or, more probably, I will get a punch in my face the very moment I will step in their meeting rooms, to see my place as a white intruder.
Basically, the tenets of non-discrimination consist in the adage: traditional white organizations or places (from political parties to clubs) for everybody; but zillions of organizations and places exclusively created for minorities, where whites are not allowed to go, join or have a say.
This extends to our countries as a whole: our countries are supposed to be opened and welcoming for everybody; but just try to live for a day in Riad, and you will see discrimination at work (which is completely permitted by the New World Order).
To see the whole absurdity and the obvious goals of the non-discrimination stuff, take a look at countries where whites are a minority and an endangered group, like South Africa or Zimbabwe. Even as a minority, we are not supposed to organize ourselves and have meeting places for us (see the example of Eugene Terreblanche, who tried to found an ethnic organization for whites on minority basis; demonized as a Nazi and finally killed). More than that: SA applies affirmative action in workplaces, but... for the overwhelming majority, the Blacks. I repeat: affirmative action for the majority!
So, the conclusion is simple: non-discrimination is a tool to discriminate against whites, it doesn't matter if it is about the majority, a minority or just an individual.
2010 1:19 AM
rebelliousvanilla said...
Furor Teutonicus, there's no such thing as land stealing. Land is conquered - rights to land are based on military might. Anyway, kritisk isn't American, so your point is mute.
I think you actualy mean MOOT.
However, I digress. If someone walks into your house, points a gun at your head, and takes your Grannies silver spoon collection, it is Theft, i.e STEALING.
What makes land different?
Ach aye! So, is Kritisk Swedish? Norwegian?
Then they are EQUALY as guilty of stealing the land of MY family, who were, partly, Sammi.
FT, I have these ancestries: Ashkenazi Jewish(I should cry anti-semitism when people complain about me, I mean, heck, I'm just about 5% Jewish, but who cares? :P), Germanic(of different backgrounds), Mediterranean European(of different backgrounds). I can claim that I belong everywhere in Europe I want based on this if you put it this way. There is no such thing as one's land by right - a land is a people's by conquest and the right to keep it is backed by guns and tanks. This is how you claim territory. There's a difference in between property and sovereignity, property and territorial claims. The latter are settled by use of force. And yes, I meant moot. I apologize for the bastardization of my 3rd language. :)
And kritisk is Norwegian. Armance, did you see that the constitutional amendments they want to pass in my country have some minority rights jive in them? It's sad that I will have to vote no since I really wanted a smaller number of leeches aka MPs.
EV, libertarians are some of the biggest idiots I know, to be honest. I don't get how you can get economics to a degree and be so dead wrong on everything else. All these are good in a national context, but without that they become poison. For example, the liberal(libertarian by todays standards) parties in Europe in the last centuries were working in a national liberal framework, not in an universal social liberal framework(today's case).
rebelliousvanilla said...
FT, I have these ancestries: Ashkenazi Jewish(I should cry anti-semitism when people complain about me, I mean, heck, I'm just about 5% Jewish, but who cares? :P), Germanic(of different backgrounds), Mediterranean European(of different backgrounds). I can claim that I belong everywhere in Europe I want based on this if you put it this way. There is no such thing as one's land by right -
I partly agree.
BUT how far back do we need to go?
Take it from the renaicence in Europe, and then the industrial revolution.
My Grand fathers, Great and great great Grandfathers made what we have today.
THEY put their blood, guts and money into the place to make it what it is.
For some peasent to arive via a leaky tub from Africa, or the middle East, where they can not get of their own back sides to help themselves, without the help from the great god "UN" and his big white truck, to turn up and demand a share of what MY/OUR ancestors made, is, to say the VERY least, a damn cheek.
The U.S, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc have nothing to say in this.
UNLESS they are decendents of the origional natives.
For white/yellow/black Americans to complain about immigration is the biggest case of being two faced that the history of mankind has ever seen.
Armance,
I agree with most of what you've written,except for the "new world order" part (unless you meant it figuratively).
When white people play at "identity politics" they are immediately demonised and shut down, like many Nationalist movement.
@EscapeVelocity & RebelliousVanilla
most misconceptions on Libertarians come from the Left, absolutely. But also from some Nationalists who (correctly) see Libertarians as weak on Immigration.
I've written on this a few times and there are a few good Libertarian thinkers (Peter Cresswell being one) who advocate strict limits.
My argument on this is twofold, firstly that the welfare state cannot exist alongside open immigration for obvious reasons, and secondly that the free movement of capital and goods should negate, not encourage, the need for free movement of peoples.
@Furor
what makes land different is that it's STUCK to the GROUND.
You need to occupy it in order to "steal" it. That requires more legitimation than having pinched it in the dead of night by stealth...
I agree with most of what you've written,except for the "new world order" part (unless you meant it figuratively).
Yes, I meant it as a metaphor for the current global circumstances. I tried to find an expression both short and popular, and this is the first one that came to my mind.
Furor Teutonicus said...
“Go to your local international airport. Then come back and tell us how long the queus of the decendents of black African "slaves", all desperate to "get home to Africa", are.”
Rightio, will do, but you still didn’t answer my question. Should the American descendants of African slaves be sent back to Africa or not?
And as to your assertion that the Sami, or Laps if you will were inhabiting the land before the descendants of the current day Norwegians, that’s a highly contentious and debated question. Anyway, I couldn’t care less. There aren’t really any tensions between Norwegians and Samis in Norway today. I consider them to be my brothers and I believe that they feel the same about me.
RV, I don’t think will ever see eye to eye on this issue, but I’d like to clarify a few things.
I’m not very happy about the current immigration policies of the west. I think it’s weak and it allows people who have no need for protection to come to our lands and live off our goodwill. This will have to change, and that’s something I written about on both Norwegian and English blogs/internet forums for over a decade now.
But even so I still think it’s wrong to differentiate on the grounds of race or religion. The immigrants are here to stay. I don’t think they’re going anywhere. Yes it may be very tempting to fantasize about a grand repatriation of all non-whites, but I don’t ever see that happening. It’s however not that unthinkable that criminal immigrants and radical islamists will be sent packing eventually.
Keeping in mind that these immigrants are here to stay, the wise thing to do in my opinion, would be to do get these people to become productive and law abiding citizens. I’m under no illusions that this will happen in the next couple of generation, but eventually I think it could happen. The more familiar they’ll get with the superior culture of the west, the more they’ll start to diverge from their parent’s ways and eventually they’ll break with the “past”. Of course I could be wrong and another grimmer scenario could take place, but hopefully that won’t happen.
It would also be interesting to get the Baron’s take on this issue. Would it be OK for the west to introduce discriminatory actions against non-indigenous individuals or should the ones that are already here be treated just like anybody else?
kritisk_borger said...
Furor Teutonicus said...
“Go to your local international airport. Then come back and tell us how long the queus of the decendents of black African "slaves", all desperate to "get home to Africa", are.”
Rightio, will do, but you still didn’t answer my question. Should the American descendants of African slaves be sent back to Africa or not?
You have not understood my post.
America, has NO reason to discriminate against ANY one in the world, Black, white, or a nice shade of flourecent purple with green spots. Because "America" today would not exist without immigrants, willing or not. EUROPE, however is NOT the same.
And as to your assertion that the Sami, or Laps if you will were inhabiting the land before the descendants of the current day Norwegians, that’s a highly contentious and debated question
Depends how far North you go.
Anyway, I couldn’t care less.
EXACTLY!!!!!
There aren’t really any tensions between Norwegians and Samis in Norway today. I consider them to be my brothers and I believe that they feel the same about me.
But you STILL "couldn’t care less".
And if you think Norway is the ONLY country with, the word you use to insult us "lapps" (Ever heard the word "nigger"? AYE! I am SURE you have!) Then You are VERY poorly educated.
And the plural is SAMMI, bye the way NOT Sammis".
One very important principal in war. "Do NOT allienate your allies".
At the moment, you appear to be doing your best.
Rebellious Vanilla, you should really refrain from stating that other people's arguments are stupid.
I challenge you again to answer my question : do you know of a single country in the world where you'd like to live, and which has not at least some form of regulation for businesses or professions such as restaurants, builders and doctors ?
A simple question which asks for a simple answer.
RV,
CS, girls just need to take cabs home. Just that those that have drivers of a similar ethnic background
Well, good luck with that in the West. They are becoming increasingly rare. In many places the taxi drivers are dominated by Muslims.
Also, since we usually go out with friends we take cabs in groups or we ask one of our male friends to take the cab with us and it drives us home and then takes them home. It's just common sense - when I will have children, I will teach them the same policy.
That is a very good policy, and the one I advocate. However, how do you imagine that parents in the West could teach their teenage girl that, without the girl turning against them accusing them as "racists"? The children in the West are little squealers and political commissars for the sacred state religion. I think you know the concept very well from your own country a couple of decades ago. It's a softer system because there is no Gulag, but it works in the same manner and is equally effective. Raising a girl in the West is a choice between her turning against you, or getting her on your side and have the society turn against her. Same with boys.
- Furor
with the best will in the world, the immigration that America was built on is not the same immigration that Europe is forced to endure.
Early immigrants were responsible for themselves, loved freedom (or at least appreciated it) and worked hard (or faced starvation). Today, with our Welfare State, the opposite is the case on almost every point.
Viking said...
- Furor
with the best will in the world, the immigration that America was built on is not the same immigration that Europe is forced to endure.
I THINK I would say EXACTLY!
Actualy, as intersting as this discusion is, I am afraid I must withdraw.
I have just heard that my Brother in law has died, at the age of 37. And my Wife, his Sister, does not come home until 17:00.
It is left to me to tell her.
Sorry, but I am just NOT in the mood at the moment.
This is f..king hilarious ....
Furor Teutonicus is upset because some Norwegians?? have discriminated against him because of his Sami roots? But he himself has apparently no qualms about discriminating against Africans who he wants to send packing because this is his “land”.
So what do you suggest current day Norwegians who have never done sami people any wrong should do then, pay you reparations? Should we bow our heads in shame whenever we think about the sami and the things that our ancestors may have done to your people?
Laps were very friendly with the German occupying forces in Norway during ww2, perhaps the sami should bow their heads in shame for this too then??
AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT? I CAN ALSO USE CAPITAL LETTERS WHEN I WRITE !!
Furor Teutonicus said...
“I have just heard that my Brother in law has died, at the age of 37. And my Wife, his Sister, does not come home until 17:00.
It is left to me to tell her.”
I’m sorry to hear that, you have my condolences.
Should we bow our heads in shame whenever we think about the sami and the things that our ancestors may have done to your people?
But this is true for every nation, community or group that exist in the world - including Americans, Canadians, Australians, white Africans, etc.
They built these nations because they could afford it and had the power, brains, knowledge and skills to colonize other continents and build nations.
We don't have to bow our heads in shame because there's no Tolstoy of the zulus and no George Washington of aboriginals.
Furor Teutonicus: I have just heard that my Brother in law has died, at the age of 37. And my Wife, his Sister, does not come home until 17:00.
Likewise, please accept my sincere sympathies for your loss.
My argument on this is twofold, firstly that the welfare state cannot exist alongside open immigration for obvious reasons, and secondly that the free movement of capital and goods should negate, not encourage, the need for free movement of peoples. --- Viking
Indeed.
Viking, libertarians are weak on everything, but economics, where they do know their thing usually. They are liberals who don't want to pay taxes. The biggest problems we face aren't even those. For example, marriage being fixed is a lot more important than taxes and libertarians don't really care about that. There are lots and lots of things that they miss and on the cultural aspects, they are just as worse as liberals. Oh, and Romanians don't sponge off the welfare state usually where they go, but they do move to Spain and Italy for bigger wages. Open borders is plain idiotic if you ask me, especially if people can become citizens once they move to your land. Plus, a libertarian state with open borders won't exist since people would move there for the wealth and then vote it for themselves once they become citizens.
FurorTeutonicus, how far we go is irrelevant. I do have more than half of my genes from a Germanic pool and this is what counts. My great great grandfathers lived all over Europe(my family is actually a product of WW2). And as I said, there is not such thing as a people's land besides the one won by guns and tanks. But I agree though, we have the moral legitimacy to Europe, while immigrants don't. And no, Americans can complain about immigration - they conquered the land fair and square and they built the country. White Americans can complain - if you make the case of them moving back, they should destroy everything they built there and move back.
kritisk, I don't want to repatriate all non-whites. It's a logistic idiocy. What makes repatriating appealing is the non-discrimination mentality that you have. If Europeans would be ethnocentric(aka had the mentality that we had 200 years ago, minus some things like slavery), I could care the less that the immigrants stay. But when you want to help them at the expense of my future descendants, yes, I do see them as more than a threat from this point of view. And not only this, but why should I care about deporting just criminals and radical islamists? This is the first step, I agree, but Muslims will always be Muslims. I also don't see why I should care what Africans will do in Europe in 150 years when Europeans will be extinct(pretty much as we will be less than 1% of the population). They could just as well be radical Muslims because if it's just about me, I can move to Singapore and could care the less about Europe. I think you view things on a too shorter time basis.
Robert, no, since everywhere in the world you will have people that want to raise entry costs on markets. Fine, they're not stupid, they don't make sense/they're illogical.
CS, this is why I would prefer to raise my children in my country even if I would move overseas. I'd move back for about ten years since the children join school until they pass their formative years. But again, I have no idea how my country will be in a couple of decades either. And in my country it wasn't like that since a lot of people knew communism is crap, it's just that we had a don't tell policy since nobody wanted to do jail and so on.
Viking, I forgot to say. Economics are less important than cultural matters. This is why I'm not a libertarian. The importance of things are like this. Ethnicity -> Culture -> Economics. Each gives birth to the next and each next step decreases in importance. Libertarians are really good on the last, but not that great on the first two.
-RV
"libertarians are weak on everything"
"There are lots and lots of things that they miss and on the cultural aspects, they are just as worse as liberals"
Common misconception about Libertarians is that they don't believe in collective behaviour, the nation-state or ethnicity. We just don't believe in state-enforced collectivism (like the welfare state).
Libertarians are individualists, but that doesn't rule out voluntary collective action, preserving one's culture, law and order and keeping out undesireables. Property Rights of citizens are protected by the state, which means a firm stance on immigration and defence. Guys like Eric Dondero and Libertarian Republican blog are strong on many areas.
"They are liberals who don't want to pay taxes"
Do you want to pay taxes?
Open borders are plain idiotic, as you say, because citizenship is something conferred on you, not something you get as a reward for turning up unannounced.
Oh, and I never said anything disparaging about Romanians, so that comment must have been directed at someone else.
RV, while I like a lot of your comments above and don't need to go into detail - there's no need - I want to comment on this:
libertarians are weak on everything, but economics, where they do know their thing usually.
There is a lot more diversity to this matter. Some libertarians indeed are like this, others differ. Socialists like to portray libertarians as simple-minded, money-grubbing egoists, but that's an unreasonable simplification.
My way to unite libertarian and conservative thinking is straight:
We, the citizens of our country, own it!
For this reason, and this reason alone, we have the full right to exclude anyone we desire from our country, for any reason we fancy.
I know this is far from reality in this EU/UN/IMF run planet, but I find it a useful principle to refer to.
Rebellious Vanilla : so, you do agree that the solution you advocate, abolishing entirely any regulations for restaurants, builders and doctors, has been rejected in all the countries you'd like to live in. Doesn't that suggest something to you ?
There is, of course, the theoretical possibility that you know, or that you have discovered, by yourself, something that the accumulated wisdom of millions of people over the centuries hasn't.
You have to realise however that the odds of that are very small.
As for the motive of those regulations, no, it's not to raise the cost of entry. This is a consequence. The motive is just that most people prefer to have a reasonable guarantee that they will not be poisoned, crushed or butchered when they sit at a restaurant, hire a builder or visit a doctor.
It seems most people agree that it's worth paying a little extra for that safety and peace of mind.
Sometimes, things are really as simple as they seem to be.
Robert, I think the free market is perfectly capable of providing any such quality certification systems as the customers desire.
Those who care about their health and well-being will choose restaurants accordingly - as will those who don't :)
Henrik, you think that the free market could provide quality certification systems instead of the state.
The point is, it does not. Why ? More important : most people apparently don't want it to. Why ? Are they all stupid ? Should not their choice be respected ?
Please note that what we are discussing here is the total absence of state regulations. Not the type or degree of such regulations. Neither the fact that private-sector certification systems might complement state regulations (as they do everywhere).
What we are discusing here is a system in which everybody, in France, Sweden or the United States, could put up a plaque on their door saying "doctor", even if they had never studied medicine. The task of sorting the good doctors from the quacks would be left to word-of-mouth, the Private Union of Really Good Doctors, and the courts which would presumably punish the quacks once they have killed you.
I'm sure such a system exists in several remote areas of Africa and Asia (minus the unions and the courts). Why don't people massively flock to such areas when they get severely ill ? Why do they tend instead to fly to American, Swiss and even French hospitals, voluntarily incurring great expenses in the process ?
Libertarians rightly insist on the information value of market prices, and on the importance of respecting the choice of individuals. This specific choice says something.
Free-market thinking holds that wisdom stemming from the tested-and-tried practice of individuals, experimenting ways to interact between them, should trump theory and dogma.
Henrik R Clausen said...
“Robert, I think the free market is perfectly capable of providing any such quality certification systems as the customers desire.”
Hahaha... have you ever been on a building site and seen firsthand what some contractors are willing to do to save money?
No, I didn’t think so either.
The point is, it does not.
It does. Pick up any power supply for a portable computer or the like, or many other products, and you'll usually find the logo (UL) among the dozens of fine stamps that guarantee the quality, compliance etc. etc. That is Underwriters Laboratories, a free market quality assurance company. It's there, it does a great job at ensuring quality and safety in products.
It just happens to be so discreet and efficient that we don't hear much about it in daily life.
Sure, when governments grant themselves a monopoly in the field, and have access to resources that don't come voluntarily out of the free market, there is no space left for competition, and private companies do not show up. But that is not a flaw of the market.
Please note that what we are discussing here is the total absence of state regulations.
OK, I missed that point. I thought we were in the realm of 'more' or 'less' state regulation.
Kritisk Borger wrote:
Hahaha... have you ever been on a building site and seen firsthand what some contractors are willing to do to save money?
That is actually a task fit for labour unions.
Henrik R Clausen said...
“That is actually a task fit for labour unions.”
I wouldn’t say that it’s the union’s role to ensure that contractors are not using substandard building materials or that they aren’t cutting corners to maximize their profits.
If you didn’t have any regulations at all, any contractors would be free to do this to his heart’s content. They wouldn’t even have to hold a builders license. Any sod who had enough IQ to pick up an hammer would instantly be a master builder, and Henrik Clausen new 3 million dollar luxury villa in downtown Copenhagen would be as weatherproof as a Swizz cheese used as practice target for some very trigger happy US marines on a shooting range in Afghanistan :-)
That would be really cool wouldn’t it Henrik?
Kritisk, that's exactly where companies like Underwriters Limited do a good job. There is no particular reason to make this a function of the State, as opposed to police, courts, defence etc.
Unions do not defend the interests of their bosses' customers. They fight for their own. We have experimental proof of that.
In France, a few dozen overpaid and underworked unionised air controllers regularly ground millions of travellers, in the sole pursuit of their own privileges.
In different American cities, unions of public workers have secured such fat salaries and pensions for themselves, that basic levels of vital public services (such as law enforcement) can no longer be provided to the community.
Unions do not defend the interests of their bosses' customers. They fight for their own. We have experimental proof of that.
No, that'd be pretty weird...
Their purpose is to secure proper working conditions and salaries for the workers. Securing quality of what is being constructed is a different task that different organisations should deal with.
In France, a few dozen overpaid and underworked unionised air controllers regularly ground millions of travellers, in the sole pursuit of their own privileges.
One of the really cool acts of Ronald Reagan was to break the similar stranglehold that US air controllers used to have. They went on strike in 1981 - only to be faced with a threat of being fired and replaced, a threat that turned out to be credible. While it took years for staffing to return to normal levels, this set a powerful precedent.
Robert Marchenoir said...
In France, a few dozen overpaid and underworked unionised air controllers regularly ground millions of travellers, in the sole pursuit of their own privileges.
What is the use of going "on strike", if it does not effect anyone?
PLUS, to say that ATC are "under worked" shows how little you know.
Would YOU climb aboard a 747 and travel around the world without them?
And how many flights are there per day?
But Henrik, you’ve just contradicted yourself here. First you say that there is no need for any regulations, and then you turn around and say that private companies can ensure that these regulations (which should be scraped according to you) are followed. That just doesn’t make sense at all. And which regulations are these companies supposed to check if the State doesn't impose any regulations at all?
What about driver’s licenses? Should lorry drivers have to obtain the proper licenses before they’re allowed to jump behind the wheel of a semi truck?
Kritisk, I think there's some misunderstanding here.
Regulations make sense, but excessive regulations do not. And many regulations can actually be provided on a voluntary, free market basis just fine, as the example of Underwriters Laboratories demonstrate.
Excessive regulations - as in the anti-discrimination laws above - destroy the freedom of our societies.
Henrik, that’s my point too. But the contentious issue that has been discussed here for a couple of days now is whether there should be any regulations put on businesses at all. I thought that you agreed with this notion. Sorry about the mistake :-)
And yes, I personally believe that there should.
"PLUS, to say that ATC are 'under worked' shows how little you know."
Sure, Furor Teutonicus, sure. Now it's obvious you have a deep knowledge and understanding of the way French air controllers work.
Go on, share it with us. Enlighten us unfortunate ignoramuses. Don't be shy. Tell us how long French air controllers work each day, how their shifts are arranged, how many days they work in a year, how much they are paid, who gets to decide when they work and how long. How unfairly they are bossed around by abusive managers who exploit them, day in, day out. Compare their work conditions with other countries' air controllers.
Try to make your case of why they work too much and do not get paid enough. Try to explain why it is justified that a few dozen people can close the airspace of a whole country just because they feel like it. If you can bring some relevant facts to the table, of course.
Viking, I was a libertarian so I know how most libertarians think. I do agree with HHH's(since he was brought up) take on most libertarians, but it's not just that. The problem with libertarians and individualism is that they miss that we are individuals INSIDE a collective framework. The atomization of society is a bad thing. And nobody wants to pay taxes, everybody wants others to pay taxes so that they feel better about spending their money on the people they feel 'underpriviledged' or onto themselves.
Henrik, I agree with you. The problem is that most libertarians are the way I portray them - and I say this as someone who was member of libertarian forums. I also made that analogy with the citizens of a country owning them, but the way citizenship was and is given is a joke. For example, if I moved to the UK and became a citizen, it would be a joke to say I own a part of the UK and I should be able to exclude others. If citizenship was given like 200 years ago, I would agree with you.
Robert, I'd like to live in such a country. The problem is that there's not one around. I also explained why the examples you gave are actually criminal allegations, they don't have anything to do with regulation. And yes, I could care the less if someone can say that he is a doctor - everybody could ask for his certifications. Also, hospitals wouldn't hire quacks, neither would private clinics that don't want to go bankrupt. This conversation is offtopic though and it would go to a huge extent to make the case one way or the other without making it oversimplified. You know what amuses me - you make the case that a person would go to jail for murder because he killed someone because he made bad medical decisions for them because they wasn't licenced, but they are stopped by government regulation! Yes, I agree, I don't pose as a doctor because I might do a few months in jail since I didn't respect regulations, but if that wouldn't be a disincentive, I would start butchering people and go to jail for decades. Yep, it makes perfect sense to me! There is a difference in between regulation of business and laws protecting people from being harmed.
kritisk, nobody stops workers to quit. By the way, all the safety costs are deducted from the wages of people. Employers could care the less about the safety or wages of employees, they care about how much they cost them. About the villa in Copenhagen, if they sold the villa as waterproof and didn't present it as crap, then they committed fraud and that's a criminal investigation leading to jail time.
Henrik, the purpose of unions is to fight against unqualified labour since that's their competition. If I can hire a professional fence builder for 16$ an hour or 5 unqualified fence builders to make the same fence in the same tiem for 3$ a person, I would hire the latter. But then, the unions would say that people are underpaid and we should have a minimum wage of 4$ a person, making me choose their professional fence builder. This is what unions do. I don't have a problem with unions, employers should just be able to fire them if they go on strike. Nobody stops them from quitting and getting another job that pays them better since they argue their productivity is hire than they're paid.
kritisk, Henrik said that the free market can guarantee quality, not that they can make regulations. And driver's licenses are needed because people drive on the state's property. In the same sense, if I owned a highway, I could say that only red cars are allowed on it, instead of people that drive with driver licenses. This is something that any road owner would ask(driver license) since others would use alternative roads if nutjobs could use them. Obviously that a government or local council can decide on how people use their property - for example, not being drunk in public or not driving drunk. Or not going nude or wearing a burka in public or whatever else. There is a difference in between what people do on their property and what they do on the public property. I don't need a drivers license to drive in my backyard, by the way. People need need a license to drive on public roads only now too.
The free market can make regulations just fine. It just uses a different mechanism to enforce them: The markets, not the courts.
Drivers' license is a silly example...
Post a Comment