PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues The Civil Rights Laws and the Growth of Government


Taco John
05-25-2010, 09:29 PM
The Civil Rights Laws and the Growth of Government

by Harry Browne

The political process always manages to turn idealistic dreams inside out. For an excellent example, look no further than the civil rights laws passed in the last 40 years.

For almost a century before 1964, governments in many southern states forced segregation on the people. Government prohibited companies from providing racially integrated facilities for their employees or customers. Whites and blacks were forbidden by government to sit together in restaurants or to use the same restrooms and drinking fountains – and in many cases were forbidden to shop together or work together.

Civil rights advocates fought to repeal these state Jim Crow laws, but they failed. So they appealed to the federal government, which responded with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But this didn't simply repeal state laws compelling segregation. It prohibited racial segregation – voluntary or otherwise. Overnight, what had been mandatory became forbidden. Neither before nor after the Civil Rights Act were people free to make their own decisions about whom they would associate with.

The civil rights movement wasn't opposed to using government to coerce people. It merely wanted the government to aim its force in a new direction.

Although the activists believed coercion served the noble objective of bringing the races closer together, it was coercion nonetheless.

The Giant Begins to Grow

And coercive laws never stand still. No matter what a law's backers say at the time of passage, the law always stretches in surprising directions. The expansion occurs on at least two fronts:

The law almost always is enforced more broadly than intended;
When government benefits one group, other groups are encouraged to seek similar benefits.
And this is what happened to the civil rights laws.

In the first regard, the bureaucrats and courts set out to enforce the laws zealously, seeking to root out any kind of discrimination – even though ending segregation, not discrimination, was the motive behind the original law. Companies were ordered not to consider race in any way when making hiring decisions.

But usually the reasons for a business decision are hard to prove. Unless a businessman is a noisy bigot, who can say whether racial discrimination has affected his decision to hire someone?

To avoid having to read minds, the enforcers examined results to determine whether discrimination had occurred. If you didn't have a suitable racial mix in your workforce (or even among your customers), you were assumed to be discriminating – and the burden of proof was on you to prove otherwise.

So an employer could avoid charges of discrimination only by, in fact, discriminating – by using quotas to assure that he hired the right number of people of the right races – even though the original sponsors of the law had sworn that quotas were no part of it. The law against segregation had been transformed into a law requiring discrimination.

The law also encouraged other groups to demand similar coverage. Once it was established that government should punish racial discrimination, the door was open to using government to punish anything similar. If it's wrong for an employer, landlord, or organization to discriminate according to race, it must be just as wrong to discriminate according to gender.

So the coercion expanded to prohibit discrimination against women – and then religious believers, and then the elderly, and then people with children, and then the handicapped.

The New Aristocracy

Civil rights laws feed lucrative lawsuits. So every imaginable group wants to be covered by the laws – to be eligible for generous settlements. There's pressure to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, weight, looks, drug use, illness, criminal record, citizenship, and many other categories. Everyone wants to become part of the aristocracy.

And it is an aristocracy these groups are trying to join.

Once they're on the "A-List," they have special powers. They can sue anyone who refuses to hire them, to rent an apartment to them, or to sell his services to them – and maybe force him to pay thousands or millions of dollars in punitive damages. No company can risk such a disaster by offending someone in the aristocracy – since almost any mistake might be considered evidence of discrimination.

For example, in 1993 six U.S. Secret Service agents sued the Denny's restaurant chain – complaining they received poor service because they're black. And how do they know their color was the reason for the poor service? Because a group of white people entered the restaurant at the same time they did, and the white people finished their meals before the blacks received their first course. To many people this was proof of discrimination.

Now, if you happen to be a white male, you've probably never felt such an insult. It's true you may have endured dreadful service in a coffee shop – perhaps many times. A waiter may have refused to give you the time of day, lost your order and forgotten you were even in the restaurant, spent all his time flirting with a waitress, or refused to take care of you until he had phoned his bookie.

The family at the next table may have eaten an entire meal before anyone even asked for your order. And so you passed the time counting the designs on the wallpaper.

But it isn't called discrimination if you aren't part of a group that's been certified as oppressed. So you have to blame it on a bad-tempered waiter, an overcrowded restaurant, or poor management. Since you aren't part of the aristocracy, there's no chance you were insulted because of your race (or your religion, handicap, or any other recognized status). You were insulted just because you're you. And your only recourse is to find a coffee shop that will treat you better.

The Denny's customers, however, could file a law suit – and they did. To avoid a long, expensive trial and months of unfavorable news coverage, Denny's settled out of court and paid them $54 million.1

Neither you nor I was in the Denny's restaurant that night. And we aren't mind readers. So we don't know whether the waiter mistreated the Secret Service agents because of their race. But we do know that if it's possible to get an enormous payoff for claiming discrimination, many people will try to get it – whether or not they actually suffer discrimination.

So we shouldn't be surprised that so many accusations are made. And with such rewards available for minor insults, it's not surprising that more and more groups demand to be covered by the law.

Absurdity Becomes the Law

The civil rights laws are supposed to end discrimination and segregation, and to promote harmony.

But coercion never produces harmony. How harmonious are people who are being forced to act against their will? Most likely, those who are coerced will resent those who benefit from the coercion. This sets group against group; it doesn't bring them together.

And if we accept coercion for one purpose, we'll be asked to use it for others. Even if you can say "No" to the other uses, some people will say "Yes," and others will say "Yes, please, and make mine a double." The noble cause will be stretched further and further until it eventually becomes farce.

For example:

A Chicago company was hauled before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to explain why it failed to promote a woman who claims she was discriminated against because of the microchip in her tooth that allows her to communicate with others.
Then there's the man who sued his employer who fired him for bringing a gun to work. He said he was covered by the Americans for Disabilities Act (an outgrowth of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) because he's under psychiatric care. The case will be tried before a jury.
A 220-pound woman has sued the Minnesota National Guard, claiming that its 155-pound limit discriminates against her eating disorder.2
In 1993 a married couple was ejected from an airliner (before takeoff) because they had screamed a string of obscenities at other passengers. So they sued the airline, claiming it had discriminated against them as sufferers of a disease that makes them utter profanities.3
Has the law really been stretched so far?

No, it has been stretched even further.

In fact, it has been stretched all the way inside out. The civil rights laws originated to end segregation of the races in the South. But in 1992 a Florida court used these laws to award a white woman permanent disability benefits – ruling that her employer should have provided a segregated workplace to accommodate her fear of blacks.4


Although the decision seems absurd, something of the kind was inevitable. If coercion is used to protect the feelings of black people, eventually it will be used to protect the feelings of white people as well. Once government coerces on behalf of one group of "victims," it will eventually swing the club on behalf of almost every imaginable group. You can't limit coercion to the uses you think are right.

So don't think of any of these cases as an example of a government program gone wrong. Each is an example of a government program – period.

You're Not a Dictator

I've used the Civil Rights Act as an example of the way a well-intentioned government program grows and causes far more problems than it solves. But it is just one example.

All government programs expand to encompass the political demands of people who want to take advantage of its benefits. And almost all government programs eventually do the opposite of what their original backers had asked for.

Whatever social reform you may envision, the version the government implements will be something completely different. However lofty your purpose, it will be debased by compromises in the legislature, in the administration of the program by thousands of government employees, and in the settling of the inevitable disputes.

Not only that, the program is likely to grow far bigger and more complicated than what you wanted. And someday it will evolve into a force opposite to your intentions.

You aren't a dictator. You can't control the actions of politicians, bureaucrats, and judges.

Please remember that the next time you think some law will solve some great social problem.

Notes

The Denny’s suit was announced in the San Francisco Examiner, May 24, 1993. The settlement was reported in The New York Times, May 29, 1994, Section 4, page 4.
The woman with the microchip in her tooth, the employee who brought a gun to work, and the National Guard case were all described in Reason magazine, May 1995, page 15.
San Francisco Examiner, October 22, 1993.
The case was brought against Fuqua Industries, Inc. in Florida, and was reported in The Wall Street Journal, December 23, 1992.
This article was adapted from a passage in the book Why Government Doesn't Work, the complete text of which is now available for downloading at www.LibertyFree.com.

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 09:47 PM
Well, hot damn... :cuss:

I think we should just go back to slavery then; how about since African Americans bore the brunt last time, we go with Asian-Americans...or better yet, Hispanic-American's THIS time. Yeah, that's the ticket...

Yee-haw!!! :thumb:


;)

cdcox
05-25-2010, 09:57 PM
I've used the Civil Rights Act as an example of the way a well-intentioned government program grows and causes far more problems than it solves.

Epic fail.

Taco John
05-25-2010, 10:10 PM
I'm familiar with a company who was sued by a sales guy that they fired. The guy spent his time at work surfing porn sites, building his own porn site network, and trying to build a business on the side renting go-carts to tourists. The new CEO came into the company and started looking at the books and asking questions about why this guy's numbers were so poor. During a company session, she asks him questions that any sales guy should be able to answer - like who is your point person on the Microsoft account. His answers were pathetic. He needed to look up his Microsoft contact. Microsoft drops $100k at a time and more. The guy flat was a bad sales guy. And he lost his job.

And he sued. Claimed racial discrimination. In a company as multicultural I can imagined, this douche bag claimed racial discrimination. This absolutely burns me up, because I've seen racial discrimination. I've experienced it myself. You learn all about racial differences when you grow up in a mixed race house, and you learn it from the people you love the most.

This man committed fraud and there's absolutely no recourse for justice for his crime. He ended up finding a lawyer who was willing to take him on contingency, figuring that they could file motion after motion after motion until the company finally fatigued and just settled. Sickening. He took money away from the company that might otherwise have found it's way into the pockets of the people working there in forms of raises, bonuses, and new hires.

And you know who benefitted? The lawyer.

Don't tell me that libertarianism is flawed standing behind a civil rights act that creates criminals who are free from the eye of justice.

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 10:12 PM
Epic fail.

Heh....

Isaac Jr. in traditional garb; how cute....

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 10:18 PM
I'm familiar with a company who was sued by a sales guy that they fired. The guy spent his time at work surfing porn sites, building his own porn site network, and trying to build a business on the side renting go-carts to tourists. The new CEO came into the company and started looking at the books and asking questions about why this guy's numbers were so poor. During a company session, she asks him questions that any sales guy should be able to answer - like who is your point person on the Microsoft account. His answers were pathetic. He needed to look up his Microsoft contact. Microsoft drops $100k at a time and more. The guy flat was a bad sales guy. And he lost his job.

And he sued. Claimed racial discrimination. In a company as multicultural I can imagined, this douche bag claimed racial discrimination. This absolutely burns me up, because I've seen racial discrimination. I've experienced it myself. You learn all about racial differences when you grow up in a mixed race house, and you learn it from the people you love the most.

This man committed fraud and there's absolutely no recourse for justice for his crime. He ended up finding a lawyer who was willing to take him on contingency, figuring that they could file motion after motion after motion until the company finally fatigued and just settled. Sickening. He took money away from the company that might otherwise have found it's way into the pockets of the people working there in forms of raises, bonuses, and new hires.

And you know who benefitted? The lawyer.

Don't tell me that libertarianism is flawed standing behind a civil rights act that creates criminals who are free from the eye of justice.

For every cute anecdote like this you supply, we present Exhibit "B:"

Taco John
05-25-2010, 10:20 PM
For every cute anecdote like this you supply, we present Exhibit "B:"

What does that have anything to do with Libertarianism?

Taco John
05-25-2010, 10:24 PM
http://www.canadiantouristboard.com/clubbed.jpg
Progressivism
Teddy Roosevelt was such a huge douche.




/end non-sequitur

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 10:25 PM
What does that have anything to do with Libertarianism?

"Hands off!!! NO government regulation!!! FREE market!!! True capitalism!!! No taxes, or government over-sight!!! All government action is bad!!! Bad, bad, bad!!!"

Leave it alone!!!

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 10:25 PM
http://www.canadiantouristboard.com/clubbed.jpg
Progressivism
Teddy Roosevelt was such a huge douche.




/end non-sequitur

T-R ruled.

T-J drooled.

Talk about a douche'....heh. LMAO

Taco John
05-25-2010, 10:25 PM
Hands off!!! NO government regulation!!! FREE market!!! True capitalism!!! No taxes, or government over-sight!!!

Leave it alone!!!



What crime are you accusing Halliburton of?

BucEyedPea
05-25-2010, 10:28 PM
Well, hot damn... :cuss:

I think we should just go back to slavery then; how about since African Americans bore the brunt last time, we go with Asian-Americans...or better yet, Hispanic-American's THIS time. Yeah, that's the ticket...

Yee-haw!!! :thumb:


;)

Strawman

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 10:28 PM
What crime are you accusing Halliburton of?

:spock:


LMAO LMAO LMAO

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 10:29 PM
Strawman

Or in your case....Strawman-stupid-'libertarian'-wanna-be-bitch? :shrug:


Heh. ;)

Taco John
05-25-2010, 10:34 PM
:spock:


LMAO LMAO LMAO


I didn't think you had an intelligent answer to that question. You blame libertarianism for some crime that Halliburton committed (even though the fundamental core of libertarianism is "do no harm"), and when pressed on the crime, you back down in a strange mocking cowardice.

Everyone knows what I think about the war on this forum, so it's not like I'm here to make excuses for it. But what crime are you accusing Halliburton of committing?

Taco John
05-25-2010, 10:34 PM
Or in your case....Strawman-stupid-'libertarian'-wanna-be-bitch? :shrug:


Heh. ;)



Teacher of the year material, that one is.

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 10:36 PM
/end non-sequitur

For the record, and for retards unable to "follow"....TJ's post infers that civil rights are, shall we say, government run amok; my Haliburton analogy infers that libertarianism, shall we say, leads to corporate and government policies that run amok. "Free" markets, without regulation....foiled by greed.

:hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 10:37 PM
Teacher of the year material, that one is.

I'm not a teacher, here; more like a court jester....making fun of the retards in the audience, during the middle and dark ages; when that sort of thing was not politically "incorrect."

Sir Douche'.... LMAO

Taco John
05-25-2010, 10:42 PM
For the record, and for retards unable to "follow"....TJ's post infers that civil rights are, shall we say, government run amok; my Haliburton analogy infers that libertarianism, shall we say, leads to corporate and government policies that run amok. "Free" markets, without regulation....foiled by greed.

:hmmm:



How can a high school government teacher be so clueless about libertarianism? You blame government policies run amok on a small government movement. That's brilliant.

Taco John
05-25-2010, 10:43 PM
What crimes are you accusing Halliburton of? You're a government teacher. Surely you've got something to say on this subject.

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 10:51 PM
How can a high school government teacher be so clueless about libertarianism? You blame government policies run amok on a small government movement. That's brilliant.

In today's society, "small" government < or = no government, in reality

no government < or = "less regulation" and "no taxes" or "less taxes" (even though by historical standards, taxes remain "less" than)

In other words, words....rigid, dogmatic, and ideological allegiance to "small government"...from whack jobs like you, leads to real anarchy--the reality of the "libertarianism," that you and BEP preach."

As Axel would screech..."Welcome to the [your] JUNGLE!!! " ...We got fun and games...
:hmmm:

Except that actually requires reflective thought.....never mind....heh.

Taco John
05-25-2010, 10:55 PM
Wait a minute... You're confusing yourself. A minute ago, you said


...my Haliburton analogy infers that libertarianism, shall we say, leads to corporate and government policies that run amok. "Free" markets, without regulation....foiled by greed.

:hmmm:


Which is it? "Libertarian" Government policies that run amok, or decentralization that causes the trouble? And what are you accusing Halliburton of?

You're creating more questions than you're actually answering.

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 10:56 PM
What crimes are you accusing Halliburton of? You're a government teacher. Surely you've got something to say on this subject.

Why not ask their former employees???? :shrug:

:hmmm:

Taco John
05-25-2010, 10:57 PM
You're right about one thing. You make a good foil as the court jester.

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 11:01 PM
Wait a minute... You're confusing yourself. A minute ago, you said


Which is it? "Libertarian" Government policies that run amok, or decentralization that causes the trouble? And what are you accusing Halliburton of? How did deregulation come in here?

You're creating more questions than you're actually answering.

You are the only one "confused" here--seemingly incapable of understanding simple English, Mr. Sanchez ...not surprisingly really, as the only real light-weight in the discussion; but, hey, I'll pause...and back-track for you, because that's the kinda guy I am....

Lack of government regulation and over-sight led to the abuses, excesses, and greed that sank Haliburton; only rigid ideological and loyal support slowed that train that everyone who was paying attention at the time....knew was the cause of that disaster. Heaven forbid, Republicans ever admit...."yep; we screwed the pooch on that one."

Heck, that would take a real man, someone like say....Eisenhower, who embraced the pragmatic aspects of the New Deal. But, hey, keep embarrassing yourself if you must....heh. I'm bored tonight. LMAO

You're right about one thing. You make a good foil as the court jester.

You are also playin' the role of retard....very, very (EXCEPTIONALLY!!) well I must say....heh. LMAO

Taco John
05-25-2010, 11:15 PM
Lack of government regulation and over-sight led to the abuses, excesses, and greed that sank Haliburton;

How?

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 11:17 PM
How?

Seriously? Are you this dumb, or just pretending or "stalling"...as you frantically search Google? Come on, and be a real man...like, Ike--willing to admit the potential, the threat, the mistake?

...sorry, I suspect that is asking way too much from you. My bad. :rolleyes:

Taco John
05-25-2010, 11:23 PM
Seriously? Are you this dumb, or just pretending or "stalling"...as you frantically search Google? Come on, and be a real man....

...sorry, I suspect that is asking way too much from you. My bad. :rolleyes:


I'm not sure what you're talking about. You've made a lot of blanket accusations, and when pressed to explain them, you've called me a dumb, non-real man.

It's hard to defend my ideology when you accuse it of something, and then obfuscate when pressed for clarification on what you are charging. If you're going to conflate Halliburton and libertariansim, the least you can do is be specific when you are making claims of crime.

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 11:30 PM
I'm not sure what you're talking about. You've made a lot of blanket accusations, and when pressed to explain them, you've called me a dumb, non-real man.

It's hard to defend my ideology when you accuse it of something, and then obfuscate when pressed for clarification on what you are charging. If you're going to conflate Halliburton and libertariansim, the least you can do is be specific when you are making claims of crime.

As someone who, at least 2 years ago...NO ONE on this site would have called Democratic-partisan, or "moonbat" allow me to enlighten you:

Mostly, it's "fraud" and "obstruction"....but, of course, weasels like you want even more "specifics"....

bon appetite!

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=275

http://hope2012.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/halliburton-kbrs-worldwide-war-crimes-since-the-1940s/

Next, I'll await (or not) your "shoot the messenger" reply.... :rolleyes:

Taco John
05-26-2010, 12:15 AM
Libertarianism sucks! Just look at Halliburton! Specifics? You want specifics. We'll here's a link I Googled, figure it out for yourself!

Taco John
05-26-2010, 12:16 AM
Thanks for the cred building profile slam, by the way.

http://www.24digital.com/portfolio/product/images/skullhornswings_patch2.jpg

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 12:29 AM
This is a point I'm not sure I've ever seen you acknowledge, TJ, and forgive me for coopting Kotter's phrasing, but aren't corporations capable of completely running amok in a libertarian system?

Taco John
05-26-2010, 01:25 AM
This is a point I'm not sure I've ever seen you acknowledge, TJ, and forgive me for coopting Kotter's phrasing, but aren't corporations capable of completely running amok in a libertarian system?


How would they if government is doing its proper job? If a corporation infringes on someone's life, liberty, or property, then the person makes a claim with the court system - a legitimate thing to do, and a legitimate function of government.

The proper flow is: infringement claim >> justice system >> case law >> legislation based on case law. That's not what we have. We have a more progressive "think tank" system where competing collectives compete for power to inject their views into the legislature. Why do you think corporations are so willing to inject so much money into politics? They're writing laws, and they're not doing it in good faith. This is not libertarianism. It's a real life Ayn Rand novel. For all the derision she receives from progressives, she nails government. The government charicaturizations in that book are worthy metaphors.

In a libertarian system, these competing collectives aren't spending their money trying to buy legislation because they won't get it. Instead, they are spending their money trying to grow their collective by winning hearts and minds.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 02:32 AM
How would they if government is doing its proper job? If a corporation infringes on someone's life, liberty, or property, then the person makes a claim with the court system - a legitimate thing to do, and a legitimate function of government.

The proper flow is: infringement claim >> justice system >> case law >> legislation based on case law. That's not what we have. We have a more progressive "think tank" system where competing collectives compete for power to inject their views into the legislature. Why do you think corporations are so willing to inject so much money into politics? They're writing laws, and they're not doing it in good faith. This is not libertarianism. It's a real life Ayn Rand novel. For all the derision she receives from progressives, she nails government. The government charicaturizations in that book are worthy metaphors.

In a libertarian system, these competing collectives aren't spending their money trying to buy legislation because they won't get it. Instead, they are spending their money trying to grow their collective by winning hearts and minds.

What about these payday loan, cash advance places, that prey on people in shitty blocks in life, and charge them 900% interest rates?

What about industries dominated by large corporations that, instead of 100% competing with each other, are working together to snuff out smaller competition, slowly raising charges themselves in a collective monopoly type deal?

What about offering clevely disguised "too good to be true" disasterous deals that over time inflate a credit bubble that will greatly harm the economy and kill jobs when it bursts?

What about credit card companies that randomly hike up their interest rates for crazily flimsy reasons?

None of these above issues blatantly affect life, liberty, or property. Unless you want to take a particularly liberal interpretation of those words.

These are businesses that could "run amok" in any libertarian system, one could imagine.

Each of them are essentially private businesses preying on people, sometimes to the detriment of an entire society that depends on a thriving commerce to remain vibrant.

The Mad Crapper
05-26-2010, 07:17 AM
TJ, thanks for posting that. If ever a book gets written on the history of Moonbattery, this article should be chapter 1.

The civil rights movement wasn't opposed to using government to coerce people. It merely wanted the government to aim its force in a new direction.

The Mad Crapper
05-26-2010, 07:18 AM
Thanks for the cred building profile slam, by the way.

http://www.24digital.com/portfolio/product/images/skullhornswings_patch2.jpg

Consider it a validation of your points being made, any time Kotter or Direkshun are critical of it.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2010, 07:45 AM
I didn't think you had an intelligent answer to that question.

He doesn't. His mental faculties shut down on this issue for some reason. Hence, the non stop personal attacks.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2010, 07:46 AM
Or in your case....Strawman-stupid-'libertarian'-wanna-be-bitch? :shrug:

I'm not a libertarian. I'm a conservative.

mlyonsd
05-26-2010, 08:04 AM
Pretty good op-ed that makes some valid points.

JonesCrusher
05-26-2010, 08:44 AM
I'm not a teacher, here; more like a court jester....making fun of the retards in the audience, during the middle and dark ages; when that sort of thing was not politically "incorrect."

Sir Douche'.... LMAO

Talk about home-school motivation! I bet the parents of special needs children just love you.

patteeu
05-26-2010, 09:24 AM
For the record, and for retards unable to "follow"....TJ's post infers that civil rights are, shall we say, government run amok; my Haliburton analogy infers that libertarianism, shall we say, leads to corporate and government policies that run amok. "Free" markets, without regulation....foiled by greed.

:hmmm:

You're making a fool out of yourself. Are you into the bottle?

patteeu
05-26-2010, 09:27 AM
Wait a minute... You're confusing yourself. A minute ago, you said





Which is it? "Libertarian" Government policies that run amok, or decentralization that causes the trouble? And what are you accusing Halliburton of?

You're creating more questions than you're actually answering.

Isn't it clear to you? Haliburton, as a company largely dependent on huge government contracts, is obviously a poster child for out of control libertarianism.

Amnorix
05-26-2010, 09:59 AM
I'm familiar with a company who was sued by a sales guy that they fired. The guy spent his time at work surfing porn sites, building his own porn site network, and trying to build a business on the side renting go-carts to tourists. The new CEO came into the company and started looking at the books and asking questions about why this guy's numbers were so poor. During a company session, she asks him questions that any sales guy should be able to answer - like who is your point person on the Microsoft account. His answers were pathetic. He needed to look up his Microsoft contact. Microsoft drops $100k at a time and more. The guy flat was a bad sales guy. And he lost his job.

And he sued. Claimed racial discrimination. In a company as multicultural I can imagined, this douche bag claimed racial discrimination. This absolutely burns me up, because I've seen racial discrimination. I've experienced it myself. You learn all about racial differences when you grow up in a mixed race house, and you learn it from the people you love the most.

This man committed fraud and there's absolutely no recourse for justice for his crime. He ended up finding a lawyer who was willing to take him on contingency, figuring that they could file motion after motion after motion until the company finally fatigued and just settled. Sickening. He took money away from the company that might otherwise have found it's way into the pockets of the people working there in forms of raises, bonuses, and new hires.

And you know who benefitted? The lawyer.

Don't tell me that libertarianism is flawed standing behind a civil rights act that creates criminals who are free from the eye of justice.

I've seen this also. It's definitely the downside of anti-discrimination laws. There's considerable upside, but the downside shouldn't be discounted or ignored. It happens to companies big and small all the time, and entails a real cost both in terms of lawyers and having management's attention diverted to sometimes frivolous lawsuits.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2010, 10:23 AM
I've seen this also. It's definitely the downside of anti-discrimination laws. There's considerable upside, but the downside shouldn't be discounted or ignored. It happens to companies big and small all the time, and entails a real cost both in terms of lawyers and having management's attention diverted to sometimes frivolous lawsuits.

I'd say it also sounds like an greedy unethical lawyer who was operating on the "deep-pockets" ethics of that profession. It was Microsoft, so he knew he could milk it maybe even get them to settle to get rid of the harassment.

Mile High Mania
05-26-2010, 11:02 AM
What about these payday loan, cash advance places, that prey on people in shitty blocks in life, and charge them 900% interest rates?

What about industries dominated by large corporations that, instead of 100% competing with each other, are working together to snuff out smaller competition, slowly raising charges themselves in a collective monopoly type deal?

What about offering clevely disguised "too good to be true" disasterous deals that over time inflate a credit bubble that will greatly harm the economy and kill jobs when it bursts?

What about credit card companies that randomly hike up their interest rates for crazily flimsy reasons?

None of these above issues blatantly affect life, liberty, or property. Unless you want to take a particularly liberal interpretation of those words.

These are businesses that could "run amok" in any libertarian system, one could imagine.

Each of them are essentially private businesses preying on people, sometimes to the detriment of an entire society that depends on a thriving commerce to remain vibrant.

I think business and corporations could run wild in almost any scenario... hell, the government is out of control...

There's a li'l thing called 'Buyer Beware"... now, if things are illegal and people are getting screwed, that's one thing. But, if you're talking about a cash loan place that charges bit fees... well, there appears to be a market for it. Not all credit cards charge the same fees, annual memberships, etc... it's up to the consumer to do what they can to make the most informed decisions.

Many want to take personal responsibility out of the equation.

blaise
05-26-2010, 11:19 AM
You're making a fool out of yourself. Are you into the bottle?

When I read some of his few first posts I thought the same thing.

Baby Lee
05-26-2010, 11:20 AM
You're making a fool out of yourself. Are you into the bottle?

Mouse turd mania!!!

http://hourlyjuice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/reefer-madness.jpg

Taco John
05-26-2010, 11:22 AM
What about these payday loan, cash advance places, that prey on people in shitty blocks in life, and charge them 900% interest rates?

That's a state issue, not a federal one. And 15 states have banned the storefronts. Ultimately, nobody is harmed by these places that isn't doing the harm to themselves. If you agree to a loan with 900% interest rates, then you are responsible for that loan.


What about industries dominated by large corporations that, instead of 100% competing with each other, are working together to snuff out smaller competition, slowly raising charges themselves in a collective monopoly type deal?

Such as? Any industry like this that you find, you'll also find government aiding it. Give some specifics. It won't be hard to hunt down once you reveal them.


What about offering clevely disguised "too good to be true" disasterous deals that over time inflate a credit bubble that will greatly harm the economy and kill jobs when it bursts?

Such as? Give an example, and I'm sure we'll be able to find government behind it - such as the housing bubble. Progressive government is responsible for that one.


What about credit card companies that randomly hike up their interest rates for crazily flimsy reasons?

Flimsy reasons? What's a flimsy reason to hike your prices? Credit card companies don't owe it to their consumers to keep their interest rates low. There's no right to cheaply priced credit. The solution to this problem is simple: don't get involved with a credit card company. A little self regulation is what is needed here.



None of these above issues blatantly affect life, liberty, or property. Unless you want to take a particularly liberal interpretation of those words.

You're right about that. None of those issues blatantly affect life, liberty, or property, unless you want to stretch the definitions. They're all matters of personal responsibility.

These are businesses that could "run amok" in any libertarian system, one could imagine.

Run amok how? You have demonstrated that the businesses aren't what has run amok, but the individuals who are associating themselves with these businesses by voluntarily exchanging with them.

And if preying on stupid people were against the laws, how would Democrats ever get elected?

Amnorix
05-26-2010, 11:27 AM
I'd say it also sounds like an greedy unethical lawyer who was operating on the "deep-pockets" ethics of that profession. It was Microsoft, so he knew he could milk it maybe even get them to settle to get rid of the harassment.

Soemtimes there's lawyers with a reputation for bringing lawsuits on any pretext. Other times there's a genuine disagreement over who said what to whom and what it meant.

And, of course, sometimes there really is racism involved.

The Mad Crapper
05-26-2010, 11:42 AM
And, of course, sometimes there really is racism involved.

Right, like when Sonia Sotomayor says that it's ok for the city of New Haven to deny career advancement to people because they are white.

jettio
05-26-2010, 03:28 PM
I'm familiar with a company who was sued by a sales guy that they fired. The guy spent his time at work surfing porn sites, building his own porn site network, and trying to build a business on the side renting go-carts to tourists. The new CEO came into the company and started looking at the books and asking questions about why this guy's numbers were so poor. During a company session, she asks him questions that any sales guy should be able to answer - like who is your point person on the Microsoft account. His answers were pathetic. He needed to look up his Microsoft contact. Microsoft drops $100k at a time and more. The guy flat was a bad sales guy. And he lost his job.

And he sued. Claimed racial discrimination. In a company as multicultural I can imagined, this douche bag claimed racial discrimination. This absolutely burns me up, because I've seen racial discrimination. I've experienced it myself. You learn all about racial differences when you grow up in a mixed race house, and you learn it from the people you love the most.

This man committed fraud and there's absolutely no recourse for justice for his crime. He ended up finding a lawyer who was willing to take him on contingency, figuring that they could file motion after motion after motion until the company finally fatigued and just settled. Sickening. He took money away from the company that might otherwise have found it's way into the pockets of the people working there in forms of raises, bonuses, and new hires.

And you know who benefitted? The lawyer.

Don't tell me that libertarianism is flawed standing behind a civil rights act that creates criminals who are free from the eye of justice.

Things may be different out there, but it is impossible to win a meritless federal civil rights case against an employer in the federal courts around here.

It is close enough to impossible to win a meritorious federal discrimination in employment case.

Only the very best lawyers can get a legitimate federal civil rights case to trial and a jury verdict and if your company paid off any real money to that guy you are talking about when he had no real case then your company probably hired the wrong law firm to defend the case.