The Right to Discriminate in the Private Sector

Gender, Race and Religion should have no bearing on Hiring, Firing or Service Given in the Private Sector of Business or Non-Profit
Gender, Race and Religion should have no bearing on Hiring, Firing or Service Given in the Private Sector of Business or Non-Profit

A brief warning...

This hub, on the rights of private companies to hire and serve who they choose, will annoy some and even anger others. Not because of it's content, but because many will disengage logic and look solely from a "feel good/bad" perspective. I ask that readers do a few important things as they read this hub. One, consider the facts and logical aspects of the hub. It will not be, as you will see, a question of whether it is nice or "good", but rather is it logical and fair as seen through the lens of freedom, private capital and a truly free-market entrepreneurially based economy. Secondly, remember to take things in context. Do not take one sentence and base your opinion on it alone, but in the context it is placed. Thirdly, I anticipate and encourage feedback. I would prefer it be limited to those making a logic based argument and not simply an emotional attack. Enjoy and I look forward to the ensuing conversation.

The premise of freedom in the marketplace...

It is my contention that a private entity, whether an individual, a small business, a privately held corporation or a private organization, has the right to hire and serve who ever they choose. While I personally find it repugnant to discriminate based on race, religion, faith or disability, I do not believe that a privately entity, who is utilizing their own capital, should be told who to hire or serve. If a company chooses to hire and serve only one-legged bald asian midgets, that should be their right. While it would be a stupid, and ultimately failing business plan, it is their capital to waste. We are not discussing the moral aspect, but only whether there should be laws regarding a private entities business actions and the free market applications of such a plan/law.

Organizations...

All privately held organizations and businesses should be allowed to conduct their business as they see fit when it concerns who they hire, serve and allow to join their respective organizations. Organizations such as the NAACP, the United Negro College Fund, National Association of Women Business Owners, the American Tract Society, the World Jewish Congress and any other private organization should have the right to allow membership to only those people who fit the dynamic of the organization as determined by the organization itself. The government should not determine the make up of a private organization. Any group, whether based on ethnicity or gender, should be able to regulate it's membership. This should hold true whether the group is White, Black, Asian, Spanish, male, female or any physical, social or economic group. These entities should not be on the receiving end of any taxpayer funding. As a matter of fact, no private organization should be funded in anyway other than through member dues, fundraising, commerce or donations. No private organization should rely, in part or in total, on any public funding.

Business...

A person provides capital, in the way of savings, investor money or by taking out a loan, and opens a business. This business is owned and operated by the person(s) who funded it and developed it's individual business plan. This person should have the right to hire and serve whoever they choose. If they want to limit their ability to earn money and grow their business based on any number or racial or gender discrimination, they should be allowed to do so. Again, this is not a commentary on the moral issues associated with racism or sexism, but on the private freedoms involved. If a business decided to only hire and serve a specific segment of the population, that should be their right in a free market economy. This would be a bad business model, especially if the business decided to limit their market too narrowly. A business owner, investing their own capital, could decide to hire and service only one very narrow customer base. While this would be, potentially, a financially devastating business model, it would be their right to decide this as their course of action.

John opens a restaurant. John decides to only hire Jewish midgets of African decent that are confined to wheelchairs. He decides that, with his investment of capital, he only wants to serve Spanish women with bleached hair and White men with blue eyes and one arm. This would be no different than the previously mentioned private organization deciding their membership criteria. These business should also not be funded by any taxpayer dollars. But, when a private citizen(s) invests their own capital, including time, talent and treasure, they need to be able decide how that capital is spent.

In closing...

The details of the moral component to this discussion will be left to another Hub. I will say that racism and sexism are reprehensible, but not something that should play into the private sector. If we do not have the freedom to decide the use of our individual time, treasures and talents as we see fit, then are we truly free. This is not an argument about using those things to actively harm a certain person, but allowing people to exclude a certain person(s) from their privately owned and funded organization or business. If this person/entity cannot make this determination themselves, then THEY are the one(s) being discriminated against. It has to be all or nothing in order to maintain true freedom.

Your Thoughts

Do you agree that you, as an individual, should be able to determine how you run your own business or organization OR that the government should determine how you run it?

See results without voting

More by this Author


159 comments

Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

If the country was an equal mix of races and sexes I could possibly see the point you are making. As the majority in this country are white, it is a natural assumption that most businesses and organizations would cater to those who are part of the majority. I believe the end result of this approach would be total segregation of all peoples. We would end up with towns full of whites next to towns full ofone legged mexicans. As the majority spread it would begin to control and remove the oportunities for all who dot belong to the majority. I know you stated that the moral aspects of this would be in another hub, but do you really seek to return to the days of separate but unequal treatment based on sex, race, or beliefs?

Just the opinions of a left leaning atheist who believes that homosexuals and blacks and women and mexicans and muslims all have the same rights as the white male christian feels they are entitled to. Peace. I look forward to reading the comments that will follow. Couldn't vote it up but didn't vote it down either.


Shauna 5 years ago

Mitch i completely agree with your statement. It is my right as a business owner to hire and serve whomever I choose, no matter who thinks I'm right or wrong in doing so. Our entire country was founded on freedom, period! Not just when it suits.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 5 years ago from South Jersey Author

Stump Parrish

The "separate but equal" argument is in relation to the public sector and not the private sector. I tried to make that distinction, but I guess it was not clear enough. All rights, such as the right to vote, bear arms, freedom of speech etc should be afforded to ALL CITIZENS...that is not the topic at hand...the freedom of property, including private capital and enterprise needs to be upheld as well. Do you believe that you should not be able to run your own business according to your choices of employees and customers?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 5 years ago from South Jersey Author

Stump Parrish,

"it is a natural assumption that most businesses and organizations would cater to those who are part of the majority" is what you said...WOULD YOU DO THAT? I wouldn't. Not just because of the moral repugnancy, but also for the economic gain.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 5 years ago from South Jersey Author

Shauna,

Exactly...freedom must be complete or it will never stand...


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

The distinction may have been there and it is just as likely I missed it.

I honestly don't believe any form of discrimination fits with the principles this country was founded on. I do not believe that I have the right to discriminate against anyone as an employee or customer. How does the right to discriminate against anyone fit in with the all men are created equal statement? The ability to discriminate follows the religious belief that some people are more equal than others and this is how many in this country view their fellow citizens. If this idea was adopted and the majority of people owning businesses were allowed to do as you suggest, wouldn't that lead to the belief that all minorities have the right to die if all grocery stores choose not to sell to them. How do you justify this belief in a country that was settled by people of all faiths and countries of origin. If every car dealership was owned by blacks would you have a problem being forced to walk every where you went? If all the doctors were Japanese, would you have any problem being denied life saving medical treatment? Your position seems to be based upon your membership in the majority of this country. Would you feel the same if you were among the groups that you feel you have the right to discriminate against. Not being an ass here just looking at it from the point of view of those who would suffer the most. There are two sides to every argument and I prefer to examine both sides before I make a decision.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 5 years ago from South Jersey Author

So, you don't believe there should be a United Negro College Fund? I do, but only if privately funded.

If a black man wanted to open a restaurant in my town and ONLY hire other black men then that would be his right. It is his capital being invested and his hard work being used to build his business.

You said "The ability to discriminate follows the religious belief that some people are more equal than others and this is how many in this country view their fellow citizens." What religious belief is that?

If grocers in my town decided not to sell to me because of gender or ethnicity, then I would either buy from someone who would sell to me or grow my own, or open a store to sell to the others of my gender and/or ethnicity and make a living out of it.


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

Perhaps belief was the wrong word and I should have used the word attitude. The attitude I am speaking of is the one that still consumes a large portion of the people here in SC. Racism, homophobia, and the self satisfying attitude of superiority that see on a regular basis.

You stated that one option available in regards to the grocery store is to open one of your own. That is a fine option provided you have the capital to do this. If you don't and no one in your town will sell to you, what are your options then?

Considering the centuries of abuse that was fostered onto the negro race, I don't begrudge them any assistance they get. I do not believe in afirmative action as this is forcing an employer to hire a potentially inferior employee based upon something other than qualifications. The realistic alternative is having superior employees go unhired or paid less based upon the predudice of the employer.

Now back to my scenario, you are stuck in a town that is populated with people who dislike you, I suppose you would have no problem dying to support your position that no one should be forced to sell to you. If no one will sell you food, your only option becomes crime to survive. Is this justifiable to you in this scenario? I f you break the laws, in a town where the majority of people who dislike you have decided on, what is the likely outcome if you are caught? are you going to get a fair trial in a town populated by people who refuse to treat you as an equal?


Sethareal profile image

Sethareal 5 years ago

Mitch I really like your article but I see a potential problem with the main premise, I admit that maybe my understanding of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its amendments is flawed too. Here is my issue: The Act only guarantees equal opportunity, it does not mandate who to hire.

In other words if they only hire X people that is okay as long as they do not refuse to hire Y kind of person because of Y and not the person.

Also if it is a publicly traded company, although not related to the government, then it is the free market equivalent of public funds.

I think you are spot on though about economic incentives to not discriminate. I took a trip to India several months back and noticed that the restaurants served mostly chicken and lamb, with some fish/seafood. If they served beef than the Hindu's would boycott it, and if they served pork then the Muslims would boycott it, so they serve neither in order to appeal to the greatest possible customer base. Many sects and branches have additional dietary restrictions which would be a little similar to 'vegan' in America, without the idiocy. So many restaurants/food peddlers sell only certain vegetable items that basically anyone can eat, even the majority of the most diet restricted kinds of people.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

Mitch - "one-legged bald asian midgets?" What a novel idea. In the area of "organization" private golf courses, which do exist, came to mind. That gets some people squealing like stuck pigs but they exist for a purpose and it usually isn't to practice discrimination. Augusta is a prime example. The government needs to get out of the way and let businesses do what they do best - business. The business of government produces nothing but unnecessary regulation that consumers ultimately pay for since the cost of production is passed onto the consumer.

The problem I see with many people's thinking is that they are clock punchers and not the brains, or money, behind the business endeavor. Having a clock puncher mentality, they have no idea of the inner workings that the business owner has to navigate to survive. I'm a small business owner so I have the inside skinny a clock puncher has no idea about.

Our job is to create jobs, not stifle workers. Rather than beat their lips about "social justice" I recommend they stop and put their money where their mouth is and start a business and see what happens. At that point it will be sink or swim time. Business is a bout RISK. It might be just dandy to talk about it and talk about it some more. DO IT yourself and see what you're made of. Or shaddup and be content with being a clock puncher.

Great Hub.

The Frog


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

Frog. I am sure the parents of those children who died as a result of bush's deregulation of the toy manufacturers, have a different opinion of those unnessessary regulations you mentioned.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/08/21/19070/effort...

“The overall philosophy is regulations are bad and they are too large a cost for industry, and the market will take care of it,” said Rick Melberth, director of regulatory policy at OMBWatch, a government watchdog group formed in 1983. “That’s been the philosophy of the Bush administration.”

The Bush administration has hindered regulation on two fronts, consumer advocates say. It stalled efforts to press for greater inspections of imported children’s products, and it altered the focus of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), moving it from aggressive protection of consumers to a more manufacturer-friendly approach.

I wont list a bunch of links to all the problems deregulations have caused this country. You can find them as easily as I did. From the oil industry to the financial industry, to the toy industry, profits are considered more important than the lives and financial well being of this nation. It is obvious that you feel the same way, correct? How many kids need to die or have their lives ruined before you will admit that corporationsdo not and will not place the lives of their customer's children above making an extra 50 cents on each toy? How many finacial meltdowns do we have to go thru? How many oil spills and or intentional poisonings of water systems Fracking Chemicals) do you consider acceptable?


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

Stump - The last time I checked, this Hub isn't about Bush. Great Alinsky move though.

You happen to be a clock puncher Stumpy or just a troll?

The Frog


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

I ran my own landscaping business for 10 years and had no problem with the regulations that controlled my business. I was licensed by the state of Pa. Those regulations were in place to protect society from the misuse of chemicals.

You are correct in that this hub is not about Bush. Hoiwever, those on the right seek to continue the practice of killing Americans for profit that he made so popular. Now what really bothered you about my post? I assume it was someone pointing out an example of the fallacy of your claims that regulations aren't nessassary to protect the citizens of this country.

I am someone who doesn't buy the crap you like to spew. I didn't come on here with an ignorant attitude or name calling. Go drink some tea and leave the intelligent conversations to the grown ups.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

Those on the right? Stumpy you sound like a broken left wing record. Somehow you always want to turn things into black and white and not see the grey areas.

Both Democrats and Republicans have been doing what has been done together, in concert. Listen to the music closely and you may come to recognize the tune.


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

Frog, I am hearing this from the right and primarily from the tea party members. I am aware that a lot of the problems we face come from both sides. I have no problem calling those on the left out when I see a problem. For the record, I am registered as an independent. I do have a problem with this deregulation efforts that are causing a lot more problems than they are solving. I know and I assume you do that turning corporations loose with no over sight of any kind will not be in the best interests of this country. It will be quite profitable for the corporations. As a prior business owner, I have always felt that if a company can't make it with out government hand outs, they shouldn't be in business. I do not feel that any company has the right to risk injuring or killing i's customers simply to increase their bottom line. I have never been a fan of unions but don't relish the thought of emplyees being at the mercy of the company they work for. When the unions were created they served a useful purpose but have bought their way into being allowed to place a higher priority on themselves than the people they serve. I see the same thing happening in our government and I see more of this from the republicans than I do from the dems.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

As a Tea Party member from the git go, you'll continue to hear it from me Stumpy. Politics is broken and has broken our country. That's the reality and it's time to fix it. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

It's time to go back to the US Constitution. It's rather simple but complex.

The Frog


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. How does this fit with the belief that giving the wealthy and large corporations tax breaks creates jobs? The tax cuts put in place by BUsh and contiued under the insistance of the tea party have created how many jobs? I believe the availablity of jobs has steadily declined ever since they were inplimaented. Tellme, have you ever seen or admitted to a mistake by the right? Is it possible that they may at some point be wrong?

Back to the topic, how would legalizing and encouraging discrimination improve the jobs situation and the economy? Or is it possible that you favor jobs only for the white christian members of this country?

The Stump


Sethareal profile image

Sethareal 5 years ago

"is it possible that you favor jobs only for the white christian members of this country?"

Stump, did you miss the arguments Mitch and I put forth about how it is a bad business practice to only sell to the majority. Also do you really believe white christian males are the majority? I live in Arizona, my high school was majority Hispanic for instance.

Furthermore can you not see how disallowing specific cultural groups to maintain their identity is also discrimination? Why is it offensive if a Japanese restaurant only hires Japanese people, doesn't that make it more authentic?

I still am not sure on if the civil rights act is as restrictive on businesses as others have made it out to be, in other words the Japanese restaurant is allowed to only hire Japanese people as long as they don't refuse a Korean applicant solely because he/she is Korean. It is one thing to not hire people because they are not part of X group and quite another to not hire someone because they are part of Y group.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

Sethareal - I know you've encountered Stumpy before> In most cases he only looks at his side of the issue and misses the logic in other's thinking process.

That's the way with people who are anti-business. Those same businesses are the ones who give him a paycheck. At work I can assure you he doesn't bash his boos, his business or his pay check.


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

Seth, if it was in another hub then yes I did miss it. I live in upstate SC and the majority in control are white christians. I am aware of the fact that mosts people opinions are based upon that which they encounter on a regular basis. I assume you are also aware of this. Comparing an ethnic restaurant to the rest of the business world is a slightly different thing. I will admit that I can see the logic in this and yet I don't think the frog is either japanese or in the restaurant business. His comments weren't directed at a specific situation in my opinion. Most of my comments were directed at his remarks and that should have been clear to you. In regards to the afore mentioned restaurant, I agree with you comment at the end. I have known several chefs that are quite capable of preparing japanese food. One of the best experiences I ever had was dining at a Japanese Steak House and having a Native American Chef preparing my food. I could even agree that there would be additional situations where ethnics would be the only way a business could work. If the restaurant was owned by a person who only spoke the ir native language, it would be hard to find an american qualified to work there. Most Americans still haven't mastered the english language. I wish that were a laughing matter but it's not.

Frog, I have no problem finding the logic in anothers comments as I have just demonstrated. Perhaps the problem is my lack of understanding what passes for logic in your case. Where did I state or indicate I am anti-business? You have no idea where my paycheck comes from and simply make assumptions. I am just as guilty of doing this on occasin as you are. I don't have a problem admitting it, do you? You also have no idea what or how I relate to my bosses and ignored the comment about my running my own business for years. You ignore the fact that I have experience on both sides of the issue.

I have a problem with companies that state they can't or won't make it with out billions of dollars worth of handout from the very government you seek to reduce the spending of. I will also admit to being quite surprised that the repubs are actually considering doing away with the 5 billion dollars in subsidies for ethanol. As I just indicated I have no problem pointing out when those I disagree with do something that is benefical to this country. Do you have that ability or do you even consider it to be worth mentioning. I know that you are in my part of the country and are familiar with the mentality the majority of people in this state exhibit. You have to be as you share this very mentality with them.


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

Seth, as I posted my comment I noticed yours above it. I tend to agree with you and will again point out that my comment wa directed at Kermit.

You see froggy, I can make childish remarks also. doesn't accomplish anything but it is what you seem to prefer.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 5 years ago from South Jersey Author

Stump,

You proved our point for us. Your Japanese restaurant story shows that a smart business owner willl pick the best employee to help them succeed. But, at the end of the day it was and should be the business owner's decision ALONE. He should have the right to hire the inferior chef that was Japanese if he chooses, even if ONLY for the reason he is Japanese...his capital, his choice...

Thank you for conceding our point so clearly.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

Stumpy - Best believe that being logical and thinking are two of my strong suits. Emotion about business has no place in my thinking process.

The Frog


Sethareal profile image

Sethareal 5 years ago

Here is another example and this one is true:

I work part time at an immigration law office where we represent clients in all sorts of immigration matters they face from visas to naturalization. I know a little Hebrew and Greek, am comfortable around aussie, kiwi and UK accents, but my spanish is pretty terrible, my Hindu is the basics and I don't speak a word of Russian, German, French, Japanese or Mandarin - hence why I work part time. Now lets say that the main admin assistant has to leave for whatever reason, and I am working full time training more qualified candidates to replace me. Our biggest demographic of client is about 50% Hispanics, probably 30% from Mexico and 20% from places like the remaining Latin America or the Philippines. Our next biggest demographic is Indian people and associated countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. Now having a Hispanic or Indian administrative assistant makes the clients feel much more comfortable, because they see someone they believe relates to their immigration circumstances. This would be true even if the person was a 2nd or 3rd generation American but was ethnically Hispanic or Indian. Should my boss be allowed to discriminate and only hire someone who foots the bill in this regard? What if my boss changed the requirement to be something not based on race but only candidates who had become naturalized themselves or were a permanent resident or on a visa with work authorization, would this be okay?

Second example:

I am taking classes on getting my teacher certification for high school, I have taken the history and earth science proficiencies and will be a 'highly qualified teacher' according to my state. I decide that the Catholic school in town has great benefits and the learning environment is much less chaotic. Now the catch is that I am Jewish, but I had a few Jewish friends who went there as students and loved the education so I apply anyway. Should the Catholic school be allowed to reject me because I am not Catholic? *NOTE* This is different than rejecting me because I am Jewish, if they accepted Mormons, Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, or any other religious group not affiliated with the Catholic church then it would be discrimination not to accept Jews. However if they only accept Catholics it would not be discrimination as they are a Catholic school. So should the government force the Catholic school to take me, a Jew, on as a teacher?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 5 years ago from South Jersey Author

Seth...

You are absolutely correct...the private school should have every right to hire or not hire you based on their internal criteria...hence a PRIVATE school.

And most things should be handled in the private sector. Is there a need for LIMITED federal intervention? yes, but limited as spelled out in the Constitution.

Great conversation guys...


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

Mitch, how exactly did I prove your point. I was finally able to figure out a remote possibility where I thought your arguments might have some merit, and you feel this proves your entire argument? The only reason I stated what I did was due to the less qualified chef speaking the same language as the owner. That did not indicate that I thought racist white owner should be able to put a sign in his front door that states blacks not welcome.

Kermit, I am not being emotional in my statements and there is nothing I said that indicates this is the case.

Seth, I am the one stating that discrimination has no place in the work place or this country. I suppose if I agree with you I will somehow prove another of your points and if that's the case then, have at it. In your second example, I don't believe private schools are required to hire anyone they don't want to. Private religious schools pretty much have free reign to hire any they choose, teach any they choose and teach what they choose. This is one of my arguments as to why religion should keep it's nose out of public schools. If parents want their children to learn the religious point of view they are free to send their children to the school you used as an example or home school them . That isn't good enough. They seek to teach my children the crap they believe and every other student in the country. They seek to re-write history by allowing people who have not dedicated their lives to the study of history, to re-write our nations history. I feel that atheists should be allowed to enter your church and decide what christians are taught about religion, any problems with that?

Mitch, I suppose you support Bush's decision to deregulate the toy industry even after it resulted in American children being killed in the name of increased profits. I suppose you support Cheney's deregulation of the oil company's that contributed to the Gulf Oil disasater. At what point does the government have the right to protect American citizens from American companies?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 5 years ago from South Jersey Author

"I feel that atheists should be allowed to enter your church and decide what christians are taught about religion, any problems with that?" Your Quote, Stump...

Wow!!!

No private company, organization or school should have anyone but it's own board or owner (capital investor) dictate it's make up...plan and simple...

If you started a company and wanted to say that you would not hire me because I'm white or bald or male or because I believe in the Constitution or because I'm heterosexual...That would be your right as the OWNER and investor or YOUR CAPITAL and SWEAT EQUITY...


sillymathewsgirl 5 years ago from Southern California

Very insightful article, and thought-provoking piece about the true freedom to use our time, talents and treasures as we see fit, assuming of course that we benefit ourselves and others, and not harm them. I agree dear Sir. You make yourself very clear, especially from the standpoint that it's all private funds. Great article. Love this point that you make: "These business should also not be funded by any taxpayer dollars. But, when a private citizen(s) invests their own capital, including time, talent and treasure, they need to be able decide how that capital is spent." Yes. I believe I heard or read that Texas' economy may be flourishing because they are less "regulated" in terms of private enterprise. If this is true, this supports your article very well. Thank you!!


Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania

This is an interesting question. I have always been a proponent of constitutional freedoms. I can become very belligerent when the government wants to curb my freedoms in order to gain unnecessary control. As a result, I've become so anti-establishment that the right wingers call me a Liberal while the left wingers call me a Teabagger. I am neither. I'm an American exercising my rights in a very Independent manner.

I was a business owner dealing in antique furniture and china. I ran my business my way and really didn't need any government to regulate me in an effort to keep me on the up and up. But then, I'm a highly ethical person, who recognizes my fellow human beings as my equal. Period.

The way I see it, because of my experiences I've also had as a manager for a corporation, there's a really big difference between a small business owner and one who has become big enough to need to employ large numbers. The small owner has the ability to oversee his business, one on one, on a fairly frequent basis. However, as he prospers and grows, he needs to find and hire others who can take over certain aspects of the business. There comes a point when the growth creates a need for more oversight than he, alone, can provide.

While he may be a smart and ethical business man, sometimes others who work for him may not be honoring his plan and mission. Yes, he can fire those people once he discovers them, but in the mean time, a lot of damage can be done to innocent workers as well as his business. Sometimes the only thing that keeps a snake in line, is the threat of the law.

I was a Restaurant General Manager for many years. I ran things my way, hired who I wanted based on ability, and was very successful. I had the misfortune of being saddled with a horrible little man for a supervisor. He made it very clear that he didn't want "too many" blacks working in my store. He felt that it gave the restaurant a bad image.

We catered to just as many blacks as we did whites, being situated on the edge of a predominantly white section of town, with a predominantly black occupied area just around the corner. So I'm not sure exactly what image he was referring to.

I had an employee I wished I could clone 15 times over. She was a large, squarely built black woman with absolutely no pretty physical features. But she was a worker, reliable, patient, willing to help everyone and she made my customers feel like royalty. They loved her and on any given week I was told at least twice that she deserved a raise.

My horrid boss didn't like her because she was black and she was ugly to look at by his estimation. He wanted me to find a way to get rid of her. I refused. He couldn't very well fire me for insubordination...the law was on my side. Instead, he waited until I was out for surgery and then proceeded to make her life a living hell until she quit. He harassed her non-stop, bringing her to tears.

One day he stopped in and looked around at the employees working diligently. Out of 13 employees, 3 were black. He commented that it was getting "a little dark in here." Then told me I couldn't hire anymore black employees. Now mind you, this is entirely against the law as it currently stands. Imagine how rampant this type of behavior would be if those laws were removed. I can tell you right now, I would have been gone for insubordination when I refused if the laws weren't on my side.

You stated early on that this hub was not about the ethics. There is no way to talk about freedom without incorporating ethics. Our constitution guarantees personal freedoms so long as they don't cause harm to another human being who essentially is equal. Denying the right to work to anyone based on race, creed, religion, etc. can only bring harm.

I don't like unnecessary interfering regulations. I also don't like dirty little fascist dictators, but I'm not allowed to go out and shoot them all, so I prefer to keep rules in place that can hold them accountable for their actions.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 5 years ago from South Jersey Author

Terri,

If I'm reading properly this racist troll was also an employee and not the owner, correct? I know you specified that companies can grow too large to self govern their hiring practices and this is why governmental regulations are "necessary". The problem with that line of thought is that "too big" and the concept of what should be regulated at all are both very vague and arbitrary. This open door is a Pandora's box for ove regulation as we have seen in the current state of affairs. Your troll of a supervisor should have been reprimanded by the owner of the company, assuming he was working outside the parameters and wishes of the privately funded establishment. Slippery slopes and cans of worms tend to be the modus operandi for government tegulations.


Jill 5 years ago

You just lost me. I read a few of your refferal tips and thought smart. but on who to hire or not I think you still are closed in your on world.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 5 years ago from South Jersey Author

Jill, Did you read my article in it's entirety? I have stated that I personally think racism and sexism is morally repugnant. I'm not defending the action from a moral perspective, but from a legal standpoint in the free market of private capital. I would, and have, personally hire the best person for the position. I would want the smartest, brightest, most talented individual working for me. One who would help me to grow my business. That being said, I think I should have the right to only hire one legged bald asian midgets if it MY capital funding MY business. I would be a bad idea from a business plan perspective, but mine to make. That is all I was saying. I wasn't saying disrimination was good.


Levertis Steele profile image

Levertis Steele 4 years ago from Southern Clime

Yes, people in private businesses funded with their own money should have a right to hire and serve as they please. I also believe that people have a right to do wrong as long as they are not violating anyone else. The right to do as one pleases is not without responsibility. In exercising our right to do as we please, we should be careful to be decent human beings.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

Levertis, Yes as long as we do not overtly harm, but we are allowed (or should be) to not hire someone because, for whatever reason, they don't fit our business model. People do not have a right to a job and are only given one if the employer sees a benefit to hiring that individual.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I am glad you pointed me to this hub of yours, Mitch, it is extremely well presented and argued; although there is much I have issues with, as you would probably suspect.

One of your commenters, @Terri, probably made the most relevant comment that goes to the heart of what I would consider the flaw in your logic, but I will get that momentarily.

But, let me start with a couple fundamentals based on your belief that a pure laissez-faire approach to the marketplace relative to the government is the best model for the U.S. economy. The presumption I have heard the most is that the profit motive will, in the end, correct all marketplace imbalances, including models based on discrimination. I can't tell if you believe in absolutely zero local, state, and federal regulation of business or not, but logic and history suggest strongly that this is not a very good idea for America; it is just as bad an idea as total regulation of businesses is.

The reason is that a pure laissez-faire approach is a recipe for turning American society into one that looks like a third-world country where wealth and power is concentrated in an oligarchy, whith a small middle class of merchants and the rest of the country being basically poor. That is the undeniable natural outcome of a totally unregulated marketplace, which I discuss in other hubs I have written; but the point I want to make in this paragraph is that the concentration of wealth and power is a deterministic end-state of a totally free-market economy.

But here, I will stick to the idea that any regulation of hiring or serving practices should be totally unregulated and it revolves around @Terri's observation that,

"You stated early on that this hub was not about the ethics. There is no way to talk about freedom without incorporating ethics. Our constitution guarantees personal freedoms so long as they don't cause harm to another human being who essentially is equal. Denying the right to work to anyone based on race, creed, religion, etc. can only bring harm.' and history.

I think history defeats your premis that discriminating is a bad business model and will be minimized by the pressures of the market-place. Your model was practiced in America from 1787 to, theoretically, 1964 and businesses discrimated against minorities, mainly women (who are actually a majority but oppressed nevertheless, sort of like South Africa) and Blacks, as a matter of course; it was just natural to do so. In those 177 years, the marketplace did not correct the problem, only government regulation began too because people who finally passed those laws realize that bigotry generally trumps the profit motive.

And it is that fact that pokes a big hole, in my opinion, in your logic; you simply can't separate ethics from business when discussion discrimination; they are tied at the hip. You can't separate them because the marketplace does not mitigate discrimination has our history proves.

I hope you don't disagree that discrimination harms, directly, those to whom it is directed. Discrimination causes immediate and great financial harm in addition to a bunch of social harms to the individual and society in general. Because of this harm, then, assuming you believe the government has a role to play in reducing that harm (and there are those on the Right who don't believe that), then the only mechanism to address the harm of discrimination in the workplace available IS the government because business, as you suggest it will, actually won't and doesn't.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

BTW, I couldn't vote in your poll because it didn't allow for a middle ground, which would be my vote.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

No discrimination in the public realm...If you are being robbed, then the police have to help you regardless of ethnicity (as there is only one race, human), gender etc...

That being said, do you believe that you as the investor or equity (both capital and sweat) should be allowed to hire who YOU think is the best fit for YOUR busines? Or do you think that the government should dictate how you spend YOUR treasure, talents and time?

When I said to separate ethics from business/laws I was refering to the LEGAL aspect of whether the Federal government can, and should, regulate these things in spite of the lack of Constitutional power. Yes to ensure voting rights tc, but not private business.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I just posted this answer in reponse to a comment you made in another hub, which answers your question here.

"

Mitch, from where I stant, these RIGHTS are implied in the Preamble and Article 1, Section 8. The preamble specifies that the Constitution is to " ... extablish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty ...". Ariticle 1, Section 8, also refers to "provide for the common defense and provide for the general Welfare."

Notice the difference in capitalization between the words Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Blessings, and Liberty as compared with the word defense. The difference is no mistake but a reflection of importance. So what the Constitution finds the most important are Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, and Liberty. I think it can easily be argued that these words give the federal government to intervene in order to provide for Justice, Welfare, and Liberty of all citizens (sooner or later, once women and blacks were finally considered human) which discrimination in the private workplace clearly, to me anyway, lessen the benefits of Justice, Welfare, and Liberty, RIGHTS the Constitution guarantees, to those who are discriminated against."

Consequently, I believe the federal government has not only the Right to interfere with the hiring and servicing practices of private businesses when it causes harm to Citizens but has the Responsibility to in order uphold the principals implied by the U.S. Constitution.

Your phrasing regarding the right of the government to "dictate" how a business spends its treasure is disingeneous because that is NOT what the government is doing. All the government is doing is preventing you spending your treasure in order to harm another citizen; which discrination unquestionably does.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, this occurred to me this morning.

In addition to all of the other propositions,you have this dichotomy - you have two opposing Rights, neither of which are specifically addressed in the Constitution but only implied as they both fall under the concepts of Liberty and Justice. One is a person's Right to work or be served where ever they want (Liberty) and the other is an employer's Right to hire or serve who ever they want (Liberty).

You makes the case which implies that the employer's Rights trump those of the individual citizen, which, to me, says that individual citizens don't have the Right to work or be served where ever they want and, in the process, making the conclusion that citizens DO NOT have full Liberty, only employers do.

This then goes to the remedy (Justice). Assuming, for arguments sake, that those who wrote the Constitution actually meant that ALL citizen have a Right to Liberty, then the Federal government has the responsibility to decide which Right supercedes the other under the concepts of Justice, Welfare, and maybe even Tranquility.

To me, this easily falls under even a "limited" government, as those on the Right define it, concept.

BTW, the founders disagreed quite a bit on to what extent "limited" means tying the federal governments ability to legislate. One the one side, you have such personages as George Washingting, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, all who take up today's Democratic position on the word "limited". On the other side you have such founders as Thonas Jefferson and James Madison who believed in what today's Conservatives consider "limited". (James Madison, btw, was a flip-flopper and later in his Presidency he broadened his view on how "limited" a "limited" government ought to be under a strict interpretation of the Constitution.)


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

The Rights defined in the Bill of Rights are to define rights that the federal government can not abridge. They are not laws against citizens. Your point would be valid if we were discussing whether citizens have equal treatment under the law as per the Constitution and how it relates to the Bill of rights. That is the public domain, but I am discussing the private sector. No one has a RIGHT to a job. A right is inherent in being. You have a right to pursue happiness, but not a right or guarantee to it. The same for a job, house, car or anything else...to often people confuse the two.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I didn't bring the Bill of Rights into this because none of the 10 Amendments apply to this situation, just as you say, as they pertain to citizens, they were put there to protect citizens from government.

However, the Bill of Rights are not the only part of the Constitution that addresses the relationship between the government and the citizens who elect that government. The relavant parts, which I have previously mentioned are the Preamble and Article 1, Section 8. The former identifies what the government was created to do relative to the citizenry; the Life, Liberty, Happiness, Justice, and Tranquirity thing, and the latter allows the legislature to make laws to carry out the duties contained in the Preamble. Therefore, this is NOT a public sector issue; it is one that only involves the private sector, which the government has every right to get involved with, within the limits layed out in the Constitution, in order to protect the RIGHTS of individual citizens when they are being abridged by other citizens, or legal persons (corporations).

That is why we have both Federal and State laws regarding murder, burglary, all sorts of fraud, defective products, and yes, discrimination.

Why discrimination, because it violates a persons RIGHT to Liberty, Happiness, Traquility, and Justice, which ARE guaranteed by the Constitution. Preventing a person from being hired simply because of bigotry violates every one of those RIGHTs which the Constitution guarantees and Congress is bound to protect.

To say no one has a RIGHT to a livelihood, which a job certainly is, then nobody has a RIGHT to start or run a business either, which of course, opens the way to monopolistic practices which result from an unchecked free-market. Given that, then you have no problem with individuals from staying in business because another business uses their competitive edge to force everybody else out of that particular industry or prevent them from entering that industry.

I would think you would embrace this, based on your statements regarding public-private, because of your belief that governmnet has no business from stopping these common monopolistic practices from happening; at least it was common until 1901 and the Republican (Theodore Roosevelt) "Trust Busting" and a flurry of regulations to curb businesses from carelessly killing the citizens.

Another interesting facet of your belief that citizens do not have a RIGHT to a job, is that, by extension, citizens have no RIGHTS at all; do you agree with this? If not, what RIGHTS do you think citizens have other than those outlined in amendments 1 through 8?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

A piece is missing from my proposition above. When the Constitution was written, minorities and women were effectively not Citizens of the United States. It was not that many of the signing founders wanted it this way, it was simply necessary to get the more Conservative of their members to sign on to the Constitution. Therefore, it can be easily argued that minorities and women are NOT guaranteed the RIGHT to Liberty, Justice, and Tranquility nor to be provided for the general Welfare.

However, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 took care of this by declaring that these people living in the America are Citizens as well and fall under the guarantee of RIGHTS promised by the Constitution.


S Leretseh profile image

S Leretseh 4 years ago

If one has a small business, 10 or fewer workers, I don’t believe any laws exists regarding preferential hiring practices (fed, state or local).

“Right to work”

I would say a citizen should have a right to “seek” work. Nevertheless, the laws -the known and the surreptitious - to mandate integration (federal state & local) are there and it’s probably very good idea to observe them -erring ALWAYS on the side of the minorities (isn‘t that a misnomer today?).

“Liberty, Happiness, Traquility, and Justice,”

In the Declaration of Independence…not the Constitution

“minorities and women were effectively not Citizens of the United States.”

Yes they were. Blacks were a free people. They were suppose to be a separate and self-reliant people. They chose integration. They got what they marched for. As for women , they were legally allowed to pursue just about any job in America. The structure of American society was consistent in structure with every other society on planet earth in 1964. It was also consistent in structure with every known society in human history.

The 14th Amendment was about 'contract‘ rights (equal protection of laws), not integration rights. Note section 2 of the 14th Amendment.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

Esoteric,

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal/law document of the United States of America. That being said, it is an important document leading to the establishment of this united States. When discussing "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", we need to remember one word often left out...PURSUIT. We are not, and cannot be, guaranteed Happiness. Nor should a federal government try to. If Happiness were a right to have and not only to pursue, then we would have an impossible task at hand. Also, don't forget that the Declaration goes on to speak of overthowing a government that becomes to powerful...

As to the argument about a business' rights trumping an individual's rights. Let's scale it back to the lowest form. I you want to hire someone to walk your dog, you are effectively the business hiring the employee. Should you, as the business owner utilizing your own capital, be able to hire whoever you want, for whatever reason you see fit? Or, should you HAVE to hire a specific person that the government decides? What if you start a delivery company. Should you choose the people that deliver for you, for reasons you believe will make your business the best and most profitable it can be, or because the government tells you who to hire. If you open a Mexican restaurant you should be able to hire only people of Mexican heritage if you believe it would make your business the most successful, correct?

In the preamble to the Constitution as it relates to the "Blessings of Liberty" is relating to the fact that the government was set up so as NOT to become a tyranny like the one they had escaped with the Declaration. And, it begins with "We the People..." and not "We the government"...it was, and is still supposed to be, a document that grants power from the people to the government and not the other way around.

If you deny a person a job with your company, you have not taken from that individual their rights. If the government dictates that you MUST hire that individual, then your rights have been taken away.

If the government dictates that a certain person or group cannot be hired, then the government ha taken away their rights. Those are 3 scenerios.

We DO NOT have a right to a job, but we are guaranteed a right to NOT have the government tell us we can't have a job if someone is willing to hire us. There is the difference that makes us free.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

I believe that all people should be afforded the same rights, but no special treatment. Male, female, any ethnic background (there are no races, as we are all human)etc should be protected under the law...but no one should be forced to hire or serve me if they choose not to.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, I do understand the Declaration of Independence isn't law, that is why I didn't refer to it, although I was mistaken by including Happiness in my list, which only appears in the Declaration.

What I am referring to, the Preamble to the Constitution, is law, however. Just so everyone knows what we are talking about and to make sure I don't make further errors, I will include it here"

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the commen Defense, promote the general Welfare, and insure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States."

This is the law I am talking about.

You say the government doesn't have right to specify who you hire; and you are very right, they don't and they don't do it either. Show me the law which gives the government has the power to do that.

What they do make clear, on the other hand, is that you cannot base your decision for not hiring an more qualified citizen simply because you hate the color of their skin or the fact they are female. That is a clear abridgement of their rights guaranteed under the Constitutio; an abridgement that creates actual harm and probable monetary loss. How do you argue to the contrary?

You make a good point with your Mexican resturant example, and, under certain circumstances, I actually agree they can hire only authentic Mexican's (legal ones, of course) if that is the motiff of their resturant. They cannot, however, refuse to cater to Whites simply because they hate gringos.

You said,"If you deny a person a job with your company, you have not taken from that individual their rights." Again, you are absolutely correct. However, if they deny the job just because they are a woman or a minority, then that IS a clear violation of the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

I'm arguing that a private business or organization should be able to hire AND serve who they please...in the public sector of police and fire protection, no...but, in private entities, YES...I said in my arcticle that it is personally repugnant and also, usually, bad business. That being said, you as a private owner should have that right to do with your private property as you see fit. If the United Negro College Fund said we will not give scholarship to anyone who is not of dark skinned African descent, I would be fine with that as it is a private entity. Just as I would support you only hiring one-legged bald asian midgets only, if you so chose. If you are not allowed to make that decision yourself, then are you truly free? Are your liberties intact? NO! You should not be force to hire or not to hire anyone for any reason.

The Constitutional rights are protection from the government and do not dictate private industry in that way.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, Yes, I understand this is discussion of theory, not personal views.

The issue, as I see it, is your last paragraph where, if I am not misinterpreting it, you believe the Constitution is Law only in regards to government's relation to the citizens which comprise (Of, For, By) the government, and is not Law when applied to relationships between people, for which it is not designed to do.

Have I got that right?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, to ask the question another way, is it your belief that the sole purpose of the Constitution is to establish the mechanics of the federal government, enumerate the spicific powers possed by the Federal government, limit enumerated powers of the State governmnets, and protect the citizens from the actions of only the Federal, and in certain cases, the State governments?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

Eso, I understand that the Constitution is an organization of Must Nots and Can Dos for the federal government...but it is very limiting...And personal property, including private industry, should not be the realm of the federal government.

The government should not have a say in who you hire (or fire) from your privately owned business...

Can you show in the Constitution where the government has this power?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, clearly I can't, because that is not the purpose of the Constitution to interfere with the "legal" activity of any business. However, it IS the purpose of the Constitution to protect the citzens from harm and can, therefore, set limits on what businesses may or may do IF it violates any law created to protect Americans.

You know as well as I do that what I just said does NOT equate to the government having the power to tell a business who to hire, they never have and they never will.

What they will do, however, is make sure businesses do no harm Americans.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

Do you believe, therefore, that you or I can legally NOT hire someone for ANY reason we see fit?

btw, I like our intelligent discourse, that is unfortunately not always the case with some. :)


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, you are sooo right, regarding the discussion.

Let me rephrase your question ... "Do you believe, therefore, that you or I can legally NOT hire someone for ANY 'LEGAL' reason we see fit?" If you phrase it that way, then my answer is 'yes'; if you leave out the second 'legal', then my answer must be 'no'.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

I don't believe there are Constitutional grounds to make anyone hire anyone for any reason in the private sector. When you say "LEGAL", what are you referring to?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin, therefore you can't fire a person for those reasons. You can't fire a person if it would violate public policy, e.g. for turning in the employer for breaking the law. You couldn't fire your secretary for refusing to go out on a date or to bed with you. As I remember it, there are some issues with age as well. All have been upheld as Constitutional.

How about those for starters?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

Eso,

My original premise was the HIRING and SERVING of who you want when in relation to your own privately held business/organization. I was not discussing the FIRING practices, but will when we first establish the HIRING of said employees.

So, Do you believe you should have the right to hire or NOT hire anyone for ANY reason (or no reason) without the government (especially the federal government) interfering?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

OK, quite right, let me rephrase a bit. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin, therefore you can't not hire a person for those reasons. You can't not hire a person if it would violate public policy, e.g. for turning in the employer for breaking the law. You couldn't not hire your new secretary for refusing to go out on a date or to bed with you. As I remember it, there are some issues with age as well. All have been upheld as Constitutional.

How about those for starters?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

Eso, I believe that that law, having read it, is a flawed law in that it dictates to a private company/organization who they must hire. I believe that voting rights, protection under the law when it comes to courts etc and equal protection and help from fire and police forces SHOULD be EQUAL, but not private business.

I agree that it is the law, but that the law is flawed in that it takes the freedom away from the business owner.

Do you believe that you should be able to hire only asian chefs and waiters for your chinese restaurant if YOU believe it is in the best interest of your investment? What about attactive big busted women if you owned a Hooters? What about only allowing Americans of African desent to join your Americans of African Desent Club? etc etc etc...

If you are ok with this, as I am, then the law, as it is written, is flawed.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Actually, regarding the Asian resturatnt, yes, I do, IF you can show that it furthers the business model of your establishment. The same is true for your African descent club. Further, the law, as it is written today, allows it as well.

I am not sure about the Hooters. Certainly you could limit it to females, but, could you limit it to breast size or looks? I am not sure.

On the other hand, if you run an All-American food resturant of no particular theme, e.g., McDonalds, and you refuse to hire blacks because you hate them, that IS illegal and should be prohibited. That is what Title VII and the 14th Amendment, I think, protect against.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

My contention is that the law is flawed in that it is involved in the private sector and is not limited to the public sector. If a black man does not want me working at his business because, for ANY reason he doesn't want me to, he should have that right. It is his money, his hard work, his time...or yours...or mine.

A private citizen or entity should not have to justify their decisions in this type of situation. One should not cause overt harm i.e punch,stab or kill...or theft, vandalism etc...but, should have complete control, in the private sector, in this matter.

No one should be denied the right to vote, protection from the police and fire dept, and all equality under the law in respect to similar things.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

And THAT, my friend, is what separates the far Right from the rest of the political spectrum, including most of the Supreme Court Justices who have had to rule on this matter.

They, of course, have found that it is lawful to do so, but your core philosophy maitains that is a bad ruling, which is laissez-faire at its most extreme.

We will, no doubt, always be at loggerheads here, because we are dealing with core values each of us hold.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

My personal core values, both ethical and economic, would dictate that I hire the best regardless of any ethnicity or gender...I would also personally serve as many people as possible as that would make good business...that being said, it should be my choice...reread my article, this is the argument I made.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, I do understand your argument, I just don't agree with it. I simply don't believe a business person has carte blanche leeway to hire whomever he or she chooses, when those decisions violate certain civil and human rights. You, on the other hand, do believe they should have such leeway even though you personally believe in those rights in other circumstances.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

Eso, where would you draw the line as to what decisions a person can make about the use of their OWN money and personal ownership of a business? Why shouldn't the government determine who you have to hire to make it "fair"?


Mr Archer profile image

Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

Mitch, I just found your hub, and WOW! Reading the comments is both a joy and a chore in and of itself. There seems to be quite a difference of opinion out there about who should pay for what and who hires who. I have always been of the opinion that if it is my business, and I pay for it wholly out of my pocket, then it should be my choice about who works for me. That, to me, is a right designated by the founders of these United States, bought and paid for by the blood of countless Americans over the years. Now, if I am accepting some sort of payment from someone other than myself, then that person's views should come into play; whether it be a single person or the government. But, if it is funded only out of my pocket, then it is mine to decide. That being said, it does not mean that I would discriminate against any race, creed, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or any other possible issue. I consider myself a fair person, unfettered by those types of boundaries.However, if I did feel that way, it should still remain my choice: I paid for it myself. I feel that Government has reached a point where Big Brother of George Orwell's 1984 is all too close, and the split between the haves and the have-nots has broadened to a point where those "haves" are trying to completely dominate we "have-nots" in every way, shape, and form. This is but one instance in which we are being controlled, and I feel it is not right. But I also do not feel right about having all these "speciality" groups clamoring for the attention of the government, making themselves be heard and catered to in order to garner more control over others. I don't care if you are homosexual; just don't throw it in my face. I don't care if you are black, or white, or yellow or red; it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that we be allowed to treat each other as we ourselves desire to be treated. Don't force me to treat people in a certain manner; allow me to treat people the way I want to be treated. It seems simple; but in practice, it becomes hard when you have another entity telling what to do, rather than allowing things to even out on their own. Thanks for a great hub, and I say it is a very well written hub.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Let me take another tack since it seems to boil down to whether you (and Mitch) have accepted a helping hand from another or worked your business 100% by the sweat of your own brow.

I would argue that there are zero businesses in America that can make that claim, not my business and not your businesses. Granted, no one in government coughed up one dime for you to start your business, but as businessmen, you both know that money is not the only asset required for a successful business; there are a multitude of intangible assets that must be added to make a going enterprise a successful one.

It is my assertion that the very fact that the Constitution of the United States exists and the federal and state governments work to make its mandates real for all Americans, including the both of you; it is THAT which constitutes an identifyable, real intangible contribution to the success of your business; and therefore obligates you to follow the laws of the Constitution.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

Mr. Archer, welcome aboard and Eso, welcome back...

Archer, glad you get my point...

Eso, my favorite hubber of debate, as we do ...debate, but always with smiles...the very fact that we have the Constitution that we do is why my point holds true...it is the difference between true freedom and a perceived freedom that is only government coddling through intrusion...no one should be forced to either hire or not hire anyone of any group...the federal government should not dictate for or against you when deciding who you hire...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I agree with your preamble but you dodged my question. Your whole premise, as is Mr. Archer's, is that government has no right to intrude on how you run your business because government, respresenting the Constitution, did not contribute to your business; "only" you did.

You have stated previously that IF gov't had contributed in some manner, then they might have a say in your hiring practices. My point is, government, via the Constitutional guarantees, contributed a great deal to your ability to start, own, and operate a successful business. My argument is that without that contribution and protection by Constitution through the government, then your ability to freely do what you want would be problamatic.

Therefore, using your logic, the government has contributed to your business and consequently has a right to have some say in your hiring practices, nes pas?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Let me approach this from a different angle as well. In your main hub, you say

"As a matter of fact, no private organization should be funded in anyway other than through member dues, fundraising, commerce or donations. No private organization should rely, in part or in total, on any public funding. "

Here you use the word "funding". But, what if the public contributed something else that is not monetary; how does this fit in your paradygm?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

Eso, let me clearify...if it is the public/governmental sector, then best qualified for the job regardless of "group"...if private organization/business, then owner chooses...Period

Your business, your choice.

The Constitution should protect us from the federal government where things should be left to individuals, communities and the States.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

What, other than funding, would you see being invested in a company by the government? Not to mention the fact that the government has no money that it doesn't first take from us to begin with...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

You asked and answered your own question.

Question - What, other than funding, would you see being invested in a company by the government?

Answer - The Constitution should "protect us" from the federal government where things should be left to individuals, communities and the States.

And the Constitution "does" protect you, not with the 100% carte blanche you seek, but it does protect you and that absolutely has value, probably even more value than "funding". This is so because other constitutions in other countries do not.

The Constitution not only protects you, therefore adding value to your business, it provides for other things as well including a Congress to make Laws, an Executive to carry them out, and a Supreme Court to "interpret" them and determine what, other than the Constitution itself, is the Law of the Land. It is these constitutionally recognized laws that you and your business are expected to follow because 1) you live in the United States, 2) your business operates in the United States, and 3) America invested in your business by giving it protections it might not otherwise enjoy elsewhere.. As the saying goes, money isn't everything.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

Not looking for Carte Blanche...But, on hiring and firing, it should be left up to the individual business/organization owner. Or where is that person's freedom? We should not lose my freedoms, just because we choose to open a business. Should a business be required to hire people based on percentage of population? If you have 100 employees, should the make-up reflect the population percentages of men & women, whites, blacks, asians etc? That would be the only fair way to guarantee "fairness", corrtect? If not, then what should the criteria be for hiring?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

But why shouldn't the government, via the Constitution, have some say in your hiring and firing practices since they have in invested in your business right along with you by giving you the protection you need to escentially operate your business within extremely broad guidelines that benefit all of America?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

The point of that protection, in part, it to protect me FROM the federal government. Using your logic why should they not have the power to dictate all facets of a private business...in effect deeming it not a private business?

Again, I ask...What should their power be in my hiring practices? Should it be based on population percentages to make it it "fair"? If not, why?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Because that would also be unconstitutional. The Constitution limits what the federal government can do in carrying out the Constitutions mandate, it doesn't prohibit from doing anything.

I look at the Constitution as being By, For, and Of the People just as the federal government is. All business is, is just one manifistatlln of the People, there are many others. The Constitution not only sets down principals about the relationship between the People, States, and Federal Government, but the relationship between the People themselves.

It is that latter relationship where I think your hiring question lies.


Bimothy Slangwell profile image

Bimothy Slangwell 4 years ago from Florida

The problem with allowing this freedom sits on a very, very, slippery slope.

What would happen is things could return to the Jim Crow environment of doing business.

Whites are the majority in just about every town and city. All of the natural resources and infrastructure are owned by whites.

Need I go on....I will just to complete the picture.

So say, white people in Armpit, Alabama gladly regress to this economic identity. Where they return to "white only" businesses, stores, hotels, etc. What are the black people in this town forced to do?

They will have to form their own businesses correct? That's the simple answer and the one someone reading this was dying to yell at me. But let me finish...

Since all the resources and infrastructure is owned by whites............how would the black owners get their products and goods in? The bigger question is: Does anyone using their brain think they would receive the same rates?

While Bill and Beth Whiteside pay 'X' for the products they need to service their customers. Tyrone and Keisha Blackhand will have to pay 'X x X' for the same product.

Nuff said!


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

OR...people wanting to make money would sell as much as they could to as many as they could.

If Business A was to follow your scenerio and either not sell to a black person or only sell at a much higher rate, then Business B would see an opportunity to make money by selling it to them at a lower, but still profitable rate.

It is simple economics.

And do you REALLY think there are enough idiot racist out there to truly influence the price of good and services to you? The answer is NO.

Those days are gone. Not to say that racist don't exist, as they do...on both sides of the equation...but, it is not the national mindset.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

The problem with your scenario Mitch, in the real world, when they had a chance to follow your advice, they didn't. They chose the path laid out by Bimothy from the time before this country became America to maybe 40 years ago when they were FORCED to serve blacks and sell to them at fair prices or sell to them at all for that matter, let alone let them use the same toilet facilities and water fountain. You keep forgetting, Mitch, that racial hatred trumps common sense any day of the week.

There is no doubt in my mind, having lived in rural FL for a couple of years now, that if given the chance, they would bring back the 1950s-style racial co-existance, at a minimum, and would probably start a movement to sucede from the Union.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

States have the right to secede, and some might with the state of the Union. But, do you actually believe, in today's world, that a majority (or even plurality) of people would run their businesses that way? I know I wouldn't, nor would anyone I know. Again I return to the original premise and ask...give me the bullet points as to what the government can and cannot dictate in a private business/organization's hiring practices.

Yes or No

1. Should a business owner be allowed to hire ONLY one-legged bald Asian midgets AND serve only blue eyed latino women if they choose...regardless of how bad a business model that would be...

2. Can an organization cater to a specific demographic, whether skin color, age, ethnicity etc...and ONLY allow those that fit the "model" join?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

1. Maybe and no. As previously mentioned, the Constitution is broad enough to allow what would otherwise be illegal discrimination IF the business owner can show discrimination serves a particular business purpose, e. g., Hooters hiring only women servers. But, No, you cannot discriminate in who you serve. Just because you own a business doesn't exempt you from the social laws that govern this country.

2. Maybe, it is the legitamate purpose argument again.

No, States do not have the right to secede, the people have the right to change their form of government, that is entirely different. Show me where it says the a state can secede if it wants; I think that was one of the reasons the Civil War was fought, wasn't it?

Yes, I do think a lot of businesses would run their businesses that way, here in the South, there is a very high degree of disdain if not a low degree of hate against blacks down here in the white community, it is very discouraging after all this time.

Besides the heat, coupled with the humidity (and the lack of height in FL), this undertone of racial hatered is another reason I would very much love to live somewhere else, but I am tied down here with my wife's family.


Allen 4 years ago

Employers should have the right to hire anyone they feel will be a benefit to their business. Hopefully, they will not be too bigoted to realize it is talent that they should be looking for and not physical features. If that’s what they feel will benefit their business, so be it; it’s their money. When the business down the street hires the better qualified person and causes the other business to fail then so be it. They should not, however, have the right to refuse service to anyone with the financial means to purchase those services, it’s just bad business and to do so will only end up hurting the business in the long run as it puts the owners prejudice on display for all to see. Being “forced” to provide services to everyone is actually a good thing for the business and community. It’s called compromise and THAT is what this country needs to learn, not whose side is better. If you’re so against discrimination why do you support the ability to defend its practices?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

But, Allen, what if the business down the street refuses to hire a certain class of people, and the business down the street from them refuses, and pretty soon all of the businesses in the town refuse, hoping, maybe, to drive this undesirable, from their biggoted point of view, class of people, be they black, wiccas, muslims, or latino, out of town?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

Eso, SO...You don't think that a Hooter's should be allowed to hire only large breasted women? That an Asian restaurant should be able to only hire Asian waiters and chefs? That the NAACP should be allowed to limit their membership to "colored people"? That a woman's college should be allowed to only enroll women? What right does the government have to force a company or organization to hire anyone? What happened to PRIVATE property and enterprise?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

We have gone over all of that before, Mitch. Read down your comments for my answers.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Although the Asian chef brings up an interesting point. But first, the Asian waiter. As I have said previously, the law says that if the business can show a nexus between the need for oriental-looking waiters as being critical for the atmosphere of the resturant, then discrimination is permissible.

The same, however, doesn't hold true for the chef because he/she is behind the scenes. Why should the business owner be able to defy public policy and be able to discriminate based on his or her bigotry? Public policy holds that when two competing rights, such as you have here, bigotry loses to the liberty to earn a living any way you choose if you are qualified and there are no other mitigating circumstances other than the bigotry.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

What if the restaurant has an open to the kitchen view layout? My contention is that the concept and law is flawed. Yes, in the public sector their should be "equality under the law" as with the right to vote, speedy and fair trials, access to government schools (a different argument for a different day) etc. But, in the realm of PRIVATE businesses and organizations, there should be only one person deciding that...the person(s) who own the business or organization. There is and should always be a differentiation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE or we lose what this nation set forth to become under the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the express power to regulate the hiring and firing practices of PRIVATE businesses and to determine who they must serve with their goods and services. Again, not the public sector, but the private.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Again, in the preamble and Article 1, Section 8. The Supreme Court has upheld many times that when one private right conflicts with another private right, the right that serves the larger good, wins; in this case, without extenuating circumstances, bigotry loses, even in the private sector. (As to your open kitchen variation, your back to the waiter example and it comes down to business necessity. So, the purposeful discrimination, now not bigotry but a business decision, may be justified and allowable.)


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

What part of Article 1, Section 8 are you refering to? I can't find anything there that states that the Federal government can control a private business. Maybe I'm missing something. Can you cite any specific Supreme Court cases that had this finding based on this section of the Constitution. Always willing to learn.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I should have thrown in the Bill of Rights and a few more amendments but they all derive from the preamble to the Constitution which states the purpose of the government, to whit "We the People ... in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, ..., promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty ..."

It is ALL of those things, not just the last one, which Article 1 (promote the general Welfare) and the remainder of the Amendments (Welfare, Justice, Tranquility, and Liberty) seek to insure to "We the People".

Further, the Constitution is a contract between the People and the government giving the government the authority to make Laws, through the Representatives of the People, to guarantee the general Welfare of the People, the Tranquility of the People, Justice for the People, and Liberty for the People; and Justice is not limited to actions between the citizen and government but between citizens and other citizens.

As to court cases, pick any one you want that has upheld banning employer discrimination, there are many.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

The "general welfare" was meant to encompass those limited powers given to the federal government. It was resticting it to those things that are universally good for all, not for things that took from one to give to another. It would, potentially include postal routes, but not the "welfare" we know today. Postal service can be utilized by all, whereas "welfare" is the taking, by force, to give to another. The General Welfare terminology has been miss used over and over again...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, what is the source for your first sentence? Also, I was placing no such restriction on the meaning of Welfare as the forced taking from one who has to give to another who is suffering. I am thinking much more broadly such as "general Good Health", that certainly falls under the class of Welfare, with a capitl 'W' or the "removing obstacles to gainful employment"; that obviously provides for the "general Welfare".

Further, "general Welfare" first appears in the preamble and then is repeated in Article 1, not the other way around, where the preamble is much, much broader in meaning. In addition, just how "limiting" Article 1 actually is has been under constant debate ever since it was written; in fact the argument over it almost stopped America from ever becoming a reality. Those wanting a strict interpretation almost scuttled the ratification of the Constitution, if you will recall. Anyway, you do realize, don't you, that while such notables as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (although he changed his mind), and Andrew Jackson did agree with your interpretation of "limited" government, others like George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and John Marshall "did not" agree.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

The Constitution lists a few things that are entrusted to the federal government as it's express powers which includes the power to borrow money, regulate commerce with other nations, establish post offices, raise and regulate military forces...and little else. When taken in context with the 10th Amendmend, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", we see a clear path and clear restrictions placed on the federal government. I'm not saying that there haven't been cases where the Court has expanded the powers and reach of the federal government, but that it has been done in the name of increasing the size and scope of that same government. If the federal government is not limited to those components listed above and by the 10th Amendment, then what can it not do to it's citizens if it deems it part of the "general welfare"? Why do we have States if the growing practice is to supplant their individuality. Should we have State laws and practices?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

I am with Madison on this one for sure. How else can the federal government be limited? It can not and will not, as we have seen in recent decades more than ever, be held to the Constitution if the Courts and Congress contend that it is not limited. It is the reason for so many of our problems.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY

I tend to agree with you, I don't see anything in the Constitution that permits the government to dictate to private establishments who they can hire, who can become a member ect... . If a business engages in bigoted behavior, I believe the free market will punish this behavior, getting the government involved only hurts business.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

wba108, thank you for reading and commenting.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

America tried it your way, it was called the Articles of Confederation and the Continental Congress ... it didn't work. That is why we have the U.S. Constitution today. Europe is trying your method of union between States today ... it is isn't working either.

I like George Washington and John Adam's vision better.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

The articles of Confederation didn't work because it wasn't strong enough for those things that it was meant to cover from a federal stand point...it wasn't that it wasn't "big" enough, it just gave NO authority to fulfill those obligations. There is a difference between strength and size..The federal government does not need to be all inclusive, in relation to scope, to be strong. But, it MUST be limited in power for the States and citizens to remain free and to enjoy liberty.

Europe is trying a weird conglomerate of federal socialism (for lack of a better term)...they are disjointed and over spending...And I always said the European Union was destined to fail.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Then it comes back to whose vision you follow, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and John Marshall OR Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (he see-sawed), James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson. I choose the former group of men and you choose the latter.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey Author

Eso, I can't force you to be right... haha...


sueanna 3 years ago

I can not believe that people think that they have the right to hire people of their own race and not hire people because they have the skills need to do the job. how do would you feel if you fill out an application for a business that was created by a white person and the people who own a piece of the company will only hire east indians or family but they took your applcation like you had a chance to get the job not posible east indians only hire their own race or family they have complet controll over most jobs I guess I will not work for another 4 years send them back to were they came from and yes I have the right to be mad it's people like them that take all the jobs and give nothing back you think that they help the community nope the just keep bring more of them over here that's where the jobs are going I dare someone to count how much land, homes and people they have here. most if not all of the orchards and feild are theirs convinet stores are theirs very large houses are theirs how much more do the white people have to lose to them.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Sueanna, It seems you have just described how conservatives view the American Dream and concept of liberty; the East Indians took advantage of it and the whites didn't. But, to answer your question, about 0.9% if you are talking about Indians, Pakistanis and the like.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

Sueanna, It would make better business sense to hire the most qualified person for the job, but it should not be manditory to hire anyone but the people you choose for your business. If you want to hire only one-legged bald asian midgets for your construction company, you should have that right. And, someone else will hire the better qualified employees and get more business than you. It's that simple.


Sanxuary 3 years ago

I think there are plenty of businesses doing exactly what you our saying. I have walked through plenty of places where male and female ratios were 20 or 30 times greater then the opposite sex. I have seen businesses that are one race and its not family. I have applied to jobs to many of these places and was not surprised that I never got an interview after visiting them after the fact. A women health clinic and weight loss place advertised no men in their add. To say that companies do not do this is way off. The goal is to get the interview and you our very short sighted to assume who might be the best person. I for one would have been an excellent person for promoting weight loss but understand that no men might help some women. Now imagine a major corporation that only hires women and you our a man or the opposite. What a lousy company and talk about limiting your market. If you do not want men then sell only women's clothes or something, but a good sales person can sell anything and product knowledge does not have a sex, race or religion.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

Sanxuary, Maybe you missed my point. My point wasn't that a smart business shouldn't hire the best qualified, but that they should not be legally bound to hire ANYONE, but who they choose. I agree it would be financial suicide to hire only one-legged baldheaded asian midgets, but I believe it is not the government's place to require a business to hire them either.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, I think your argument is a bit backwards. You are quite correct, the gov't should and doesn't "require you to hire anybody". What it does do, and I know you disagree with this as well, is the gov't does require you not to discriminate in your hiring practices. What the gov't is telling you is that you" cannot not hire" someone more qualified based on race, creed, gender, etc

Your point, of course, is still the same; you don't think the gov't should have the right to stop you from discriminating in your hiring. Your actual argument is that business owners should be allowed to "not hire" whomever they want regardless of the harm to society it causes; a society whose job it is for the gov't to protect from harm.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

Eso, are my individual rights forfeited when I conduct business? What if I, as in individual, want to hire a babysitter. And what if I only want a female sitter? Or only want a male Or only want someone under 30 years of age? Am I entitled to make that choice? What of a gardener for my home? A maid?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, of course they are not so long as your conduct is not illegal. If you have valid, legitamate, and provable business reasons for those choices you listed, then you can do all of those things. We don't, however, live in a Hobbesian or Lockian state of nature; personal liberty is not unlimited. Personal liberties are limited by the need and duty of a government to protect one individual from the harm of another individual, group of individuals, or some other external entity; that is why governments such as ours were created.

An extension of your point is that as a businessman, you can hire only illegal immigrants if that is what you feel like doing; why should the gov't stop you if you have unlimited personal liberty to hire whomever you choose? I presume you agree with that? Or, how about, as the operator of a day care, all you want to hire are pedophiles, should you be prevented by gov't authority from doing that?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

I believe that people that are here illegally should not be here, are law breakers and should be deported. I do not think it should be legal to hire people that are here illegally.

As to the pedophiles, I believe that local and State laws can handle that well enough without the federal government. Besides, it is the parent's job to research where they are sending their children. Parental responsibility should include asking who a childcare provider hires, what training, safety etc is required. Personal responsibility has given way to a Big Brother Nanny State mentality.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

So, with your statement on the pedophile example, are you saying the State has a right to limit your liberty by regulating you who can't hire or to not discriminate, just not the federal gov't? (I believe laws in the area are state not federal, in any case.)

Legal or illegal, what difference should that make if it is your assertion that the federal gov't, which applies in this case, doesn't have a right to interfere with your right as a businessman to hire or not hire anyone you please? If I remember right, your position is that the federal gov't cannot regulate individual or corporate behavior, only state behavior because the Constitution is a contract between the Federal and State gov'ts and not between the People and the Federal gov't.

If I am not understanding you right, then when is it OK for the Federal gov't (I never know when to capitalize state and federal) limit individual liberty and when is it not? If you think the feds can limit liberty in some cases, what is your criteria and basis for this?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

The Constitution is a contract that defines and limits the Federal government and sets up very specific and narrow power given to the federal government by the States (the People). The federal government was created by the States, not the other way around. If a local community wants to limit access to children from any law breaking group or individual, then by the power of the people and the local legislature, they can pass such laws. But, I believe it is the business owners choice to decide who they hire and fire when these limited issues are not at hand. The federal government should have no say in this.

At the end of the day, more individual responsibility and less federal intervention would do us all good.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, I have to disagree with your statement that the "federal gov't was created by the States". I don't think it was for these simple facts; 1) in writing the requirements for ratification, the framers made sure the question went to the People of each state and not the state's legislature. The Constitution required each state to create its own Constitutional Convention, separtate from the state gov't to decide on ratification. Why? Because they knew that if left to the state legislatures, the new constitution would go the way of the Albany plan ... in defeat. That is why they wanted the People to make the decision; 2) the Constitutional Convention was created to throw out the Ariticles of Confederatioin, a contract between States, and institute a new constitution which gave the federal government much more authority "over" the States while at the same time forging a nation which was, as Lincoln put it, a contract with the People, by the People, and for the People that merged the States and the Federal gov't into a single whole, a federation where the Federal gov't made up for the defects of the states and the state gov'ts made up for the defects in the Federal gov't.

The People give power to a state gov't, not the other way around, and it is the People who give power to the Federal gov't, not the States. There is no equality between the State and the People; the state is subservient to the People.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

Es0, that is why, wrote the States (the People). I believe we are on the same page with that. The Rights of the People should mold the State and Federal governance, and not the other way around.

Laws should protect you from overt damages caused by another person, such as slander. But, not through subjective passive "hurts", such as not being made to feel good or not getting hired.

There should not be systemic, government sponsored ban on hiring any group etc. The government Should not say, as it did in the past, that any group or gender is not allowed to work in any specific field, but they should not deny a private business or other entity from choosing who they hive, for any reason.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

So, Mitch, to me your second para, last sentence implies there should be no laws against discrimination, at least as it applies to private hiring practices, even though it might (and did) disenfanchise a whole race?

Re, your third para., I agree no gov't can "ban" you from hiring somebody. But beyond the military, I don't think the federal gov't, at least, ever did. They discriminated in their own hiring practices, no question about it, just like private business did and does, but officially banned somebody or group from performing at a certain job inside or outside of gon't ... not that I have ever heard of.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

There was, in our past actual laws of discrimination, and that is total reprehensible. There should be no laws that deny any person of any gender, race, religion or creed from being hired a served or from accessing any public area or service. But, there should also be no laws mandating any private choices within companies and organizations.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

So, taking an absurd case, if all of the white businessmen in America believe blacks aren't intelligent enough and are all theives anyway as well as the womens place is in the home, barefoot and pregnant, thereby refusing to hire any blacks and women, that would be OK with you? Meaning, you would support such a society and oppose any governmental, at any level, to right this wrong (this, of course, is the South in the 1800s and to lesser degrees today, or South Afrika up until a few decades ago.)


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

The federal government should not dictate who a private company does or doesn't hire.

Can the federal government, Constitutionally, determined the hiring practices of a private company and force them to hire the "best" person for the job? Or does the company have right to hire incompetent people if it choses to?

Could l hire a staff of only women of African decent if I chose to, even if there were whites and Asians that had more experience?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

As current law stands, the answer to your first question is no, the federal gov't can't force a private company to hire the "best" person.

The answer to your second question is yes, in effect the federal gov't can strongly encourage you to hire the better qualified defined disadvantaged applicant in order to prevent systematic discrimination. I say "in effect" because you could still choose not to, but suffer the legal consequences if you don't.

You also have the option, if hiring someone from one of the protected groups is that distastful to you as a person, of going out of business; rather than hire somebody you are predudiced against.

The progressive side of me, who believes in the most individual liberty for the least cost in loss of liberty, believes the laws against discrimination are just, be they local, state, or federal.

There always has to be a trade-off of one individual liberty against another for a stable society cannot exist in a pure state of nature. Some liberties must be given up, such as my right to kill you, because your liberty of the right to live trumps me. The same is true for discrimination. My right to not be discriminated againsts due to stupid bigotry trumps your right to discriminate against me because you are a bigot. You are causing real harm to me because of your bigotry (the broad you, not you you), while I am not causing real harm to you by requiring you to suppress your bigotry. Makes since to me anyway.


Sigotratando 3 years ago

There is a fine line that is easy to cross when considering “freedom of property and private capital” and "taxpayer funding," similar to the one between religion and political activism.

Tax breaks and incentives are a type of subsidy. That subsidy is public. So any company benefiting from that public support is beholden to the public as a whole, not a demographic. Further, "investors" can be drawn from the public as a whole — when that happens, the rights of all investors to their beliefs needs to be respected. If you do not set your business up as an "organization" with a description of who you serve and employ, then the assumption is that you are "open for business" to the public as a whole.

I can hear now: "but businesses are not a democracy." That is true. Business represents a cog in the machinery of our market system, whereas democracy represents our social system (public as a whole) reflecting our mores and national conscience. I have read arguments (just today, in fact) that contend that, to govern society, we either have the free-market system or we have a social system designed to target moral issues, the ones that business people carry with them into their businesses. The market system is morality agnostic: it's job is economy. The moment that system is affected by non-business (such as religion), then other rules need to come into play.

The market system vs. the social system is a false dichotomy. There is an intersection (think Venn diagram) wherein the two must-needs mingle and for which rules to maximize and respect the two mutually exclusive portions can be maximized. For either side to point to the intersection as an evil upon or benefit to itself is being willfully opportunistic. Territorial waters might be a concrete example of the concept.

Therefore, thinking in terms of a business component and a moral component that does not mix is a mutually exclusive dichotomy that does not exists. Trying to rationalize it away is unproductive mental gymnastics. Better to acknowledge the intersection and deal with it the best we can. Simply: if you want to discriminate, you do not get public funds or reprieve from taxation and other public burdens. In that way, you have the "freedom" to be whatever you want to the fullest extent, just not with everyone else's help.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I love your Venn diagram analogy, Sigotratando, it is a perfect fit to the situation at hand. Raw capitalism inexorably leads to a concentration of wealth, power, and privilege in a very few hands counterbalanced by extreme social and economic inequality for the rest of the population which, in the worst case, lives at the subsitance level The purpose of government is to prevent that from happening.

If you a socialist, it means taking over the means of production entirely. If your a conservative, then you are living in nirvana already; both are class based philosophies. If you are a liberal, who believes in individual rights, you may or may not see this situation as bad or not, depending on your belief in how "active" the government should be.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

Sig,afew things:

1. Tax breaks and subsidies are not the same things. A tax break is a write off etc. that reduce the amount of monies paid in taxes, while a subsidy is a payment made from tax dollars collected from others. I'm an for a flat/fair consumption tax and eliminating federal subsidies and most, if not all, federal programs... now on that point we can take off the table for this discussion.

2. If someone invests in a business as an outside investor, they need to do so with the understanding that they are investing in the company as a whole. This would include the social and economic policies.

3. I never said that morals shouldn't play a role in the decision making process for a business owner, but that it should not be dictated by the federal government. A business owner should make those decisions and then be prepared to have those decisions be accepted or denied by the market. If enough potential employees and customers decide to not support the business, then they will either change their policies or go out of business.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

My Eso, as a conservative we are not in a nirvana, as we are in a far more socialist state then ever. As to your comment about a "liberal, who believes in individual rights"... The liberal believes in group rights and special rights. The true conservative believe' in both individual rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, and in personal responsibility and not blaming others.

I do enjoy our conversations.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Nope, Mitch, you are definitionally wrong there. You have three politically distict groups whose combinations of sources of authority and ends differ from each other. Conservatives and Socialists are definitionally kissing cousins, makes you shiver doesn't it. Picture a socialist and a conservative coming together and agreeing on two things, 1) the rights of man do not derive from the state of nature and 2) class, and in the case of the conservative class hierarchy is the basis of social structure. After agreeing on those principals, the socialist faces left, the conservative right, and they go marching of to the beat of each's personal drummer.

Then there is that group of people who developed around the 1700s from ideas of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, and many others that rejected monachy, conservatism, and all that came before it by developing the theory of Liberalism. It is this revolutionaly idea upon which America was founded. Liberalism's fundamental tenet was that individuals had natural rights they possess in and of themselves and not by the grace of any man. John Locke, the principle philosophical backbone of American liberalism, posited that the society, if it were to function well, needed to make a contract to form a gov't to whom it would temporarily assign certain rights to be used to protect individuals from harm by other individuals or groups of individuals, but no more rights than necessary to accomplish that limited function.

In America, that form of liberalism broke down into two factions, as it always does, the Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Marshall faction of "active-state" liberals and the Jackson, Mason, Henry "limited or minimal-state" liberals. Both believe in individual rights, which are denied by socialists and conservatives, but active-staters believe gov't should interve to insure everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed as for as their talents and sacrifice allow them, while limited-state liberals believe in social Darwinism and that the gov't shouldn't protect the weak from the strong.

As far as the tax break and subisdy issue, right now, managers of hedge funds get a tax break by paying capital gains rates on their salaries rather than normal tax rates that all other managers pay. What if, instead, they were charged a normal tax rate, but given a subsidy that exactly equalled the tax break they currently receive. How is that substantively different from each other in terms of loss of revenue to the gon't?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

Your definitions would be correct in the past as that is what classic liberalism was, but today the modern liberal "progessive" is more akin to the socialist. A true modern conservative, as opposed to someone just wearing the "Republican" tag, does believe that rights are existent without governmentt, not being bestowed by government. Rights are to be protected by and from the government by the Constitution, but do not derive from there.

The nomenclature has been twisted around. What was once called liberalism could now more closely be defined as a conservative. A modern conservative believes in individual rights, personal responsibility, community as a chosen group to work within and for and that the government, especially on the federal level, should be limited and Constitutional. The modern liberal believes that the governement, especially the federal government, should take an ever increasing role in business and the private sector as a whole. Remember we are talking about consrvatives and liberals and not Dems and Repubs...they are not interchangable.

I'm against all the tax code as it is written. I think there should be a flat/fair (depending again on definition) tax that is consumption based or somehow more inline with our taxation prior to the Fed. No one should be penalized for success by paying a higher %. Likewise, no federal tax dollars should be used to redistribute wealth. Only for the common defense and other Constitutionally sound items.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Last first, the other four Constitutionally sound items besides common defense are: 1) to form a more perfect Union, to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and 5) secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves meaning the People and not the States) and our posterity. Grant you, those who believe in active-state liberalism believe the Constitution is a contract between the People and the federal government, ratified by State-run Constitutional conventions of the people of that state, not the legislatures. Conservatives and limited-state liberals believe the Constitution is, like the Articles of Confederation, a contract between the States and federal government. These are two very incompatible belief sets that exist in today's political discourse.

As to my defifinitions, I didn't make them up. They are the common academic usage and meaning of those terms, then and now. To put it bluntly, if a person believes men are naturally superior to women, whites to blacks, entreprenuers to laborers, educated to uneducated, rich to poor, etc; that by definition is part of being a Conservative because these are all indicative of believing in a social hierarchy being the natural and correct state of affairs. Further, if a person believes that constitutions are invarient and must always be based on past precedent and if changed, the change must occur very slowly; that is also a trait of Conservatism. There is no place in the conservatives world for individual rights, otherwise accepting inequality between classes wouldn't be what is normal, it would be abnormal and opposed. All you have to do is look at American history from its on-set to now to figure out who are conservatives and who are not. Just count those opposed to the 14th, 15th, 16th amendments plus the amendment giving women the right to vote.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

So, If I believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, private property, free market economics, a limited federal government in both size and scope, equal rights and not special rights, secure borders and national sovereignty, the liberty and freedom of the individual first, then the States and protected but not limited by the federal government ...what would that make me, being the opposite of what myself and many others call liberal in the modern meaning of the term? Being the opposite of most of the Democrat party and too many from the Republican party as well?

There is a difference between classic liberalism and the modern liberal, just as the two main political parties have changed. Obama and his party are, by and large, not in support of what I support as listed above. They do not support either the classical liberalism or the modern conservative definition.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

That, my friend, makes you a liberal. The question is, how far do you let the federal gov't go in securing things like "equal rights" or "equal opportunity to use your labor, talents, education, and initiative to succeed" without people or groups with "unearned" privileges, power, and advantages that proscribe others who have the same individual rights from obtaining their American dream.

That is what separates "active-state" liberals from "limited-state" liberals. Active-staters, such as Adams, Jefferson (sometimes), Madison (sometimes) Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower - Carter, Clinton, and Obama, think the federal gov't should take an active role in these and other progressive ideas regarding the social well-being of American citizens. Limited-state liberals, meaning the rest of the Presidents, believe in a Darwinist approach to a social agenda where the gov't let's its citizens fend for themselves in an capitalists environment whose unfettered outcome is the concentration of wealth and economic/political power in just a few hands.

The "modern" liberal is simply an active-state liberal, as defined in my list of Presidents earlier. That isn't to say that as you move further to the Left, one moves from individual rights to a workers "class" rights, which, of course is socialism. Limited-state liberalism goes the other direction to the Right where individual rights get lost in the rights of the upper class.

To be a liberal is to believe in Locke and individual rights. To be a conservative is to believe in Edmund Burke and a hierarchacal social stuctures of betters and less-betters. Socialists believe in classes as well, just the other way around, the supremecy of the working class over the upper class.

The fact the conservatism, which is associated with the racist South, as become co-mingled with limited-state liberalism is unfortunate.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

BTW. please understand I thought just as you did until I started researching it to write hubs about the differences and then got to the point in a series of lectures titled "Cycles of American Political Thought" by Professor Joseph Kobylks of Southern Methodist University went into detail during his discussions of the influence of each philosophy on American politics.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

But, in the course of modern discourse, the terms are quite different. I definitely understand the classical/academic definitions. But, by the common modern usage of the "names", I'm a Constitutional conservative w/Libertarian leanings,


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

But then what do call a real conservative, the kind that follows in the footsteps of Burke, Kirk, and Buckley, as political thinkers or politicians such as John C. Calhoon, George Wallace, the majority justices in the infamous Plessy v Ferguson landmark US Supreme Court case in 1896, and the like?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, Russell Kirk (1918 - 1994), along with William F. Buckley (who I didn't know was a CIA agent for awhile) is one of the main philosophical minds behind modern conservativism. Here are his six principles of Conservatism:

1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;

2. An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;

3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;

4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;

5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and

6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

Note in #1 that "natural law" is not the same as that used by Hobbes or Locke in their "state of nature" concept of individual rights. Also note #3 which defines "classes" and "natural distinctions" (read that as woman's inferiority to men, blacks inferiority to whites, etc). #3 is at complete odds with the notion of individual liberty and freedom.

This is a modern definition, not a time-worn one. Now, those who don't want to fancy themselves as "liberal" often try, as I think you are doing, to redefine conservatism by attaching the word liberal to it with the idea of adding the component of individual rights to a conservative ideology, but it, to me at least, is like adding oil and water together; sooner or later, they separate out.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

I stand by my self described list of "who am I's" from 2 days ago...that is who I am, regardless of the title...a rose by any other name...

But, in current times and in the debates over policy and ideals, the name liberal stand for what Obama and his follower believe and the term consevative stand for what I beleive. If you were to ask "man on the street" questions and listed my list of beliefs and Obama's list of beliefs (and actions) the average person would call me a conservative and Obama a liberal...I completely understand the point you are making, but I'm discussing it from a day to day perspective.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

And I yours, but still to my previous question, do you align then, as a conservative, with the likes of George Wallace (not the comedian), John C. Calhoon, and those justices I referred to. Do you see that group and you holding to the same set of general principles regarding individual rights, etc.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

I do not agree with institutional segregation. There should be no federal laws that dictate that any one group can not participate in any level in the public domain. I do agree, at least in part, with Calhoun on nulification...if I understand his position coreectly.

What specific ideas of theirs were you addressing?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Wallace, obviously, and Calhoon ultimately were conservatives. Many of the justices in the majority of the Dredd Scott and Plessy v Ferguson cases were conservatives who believed in the inferiority of certain clases, not just race, relative to others as a "matter of nature". Wallace and Calhoon were not nationalists in the since of the Constitution that federal law, when not found unconstitutional, is supreme but that States have a right to "go it alone" should they so chose and are not particulary bound by any federal law they happen not to like. (now this is a characteristic of limited-state liberals as well but, in their case, when push-comes-to-shove, they will save the nation rather than destroy it in the name of State's rights)

Each of those people or groups did believe their cannot be a federal law that prevents indidviduals or states from creating laws which bar participation at cetain (rather than 'any') level in the public domain. All of those people believe certain people, because of their class of race or gender, can be barred by private or state decree from participating in various aspects of public life, simply because they belong to that class. All, a hallmark of even today's definition of conservatism, believe the class of the priviledged, due to the natural intelligence and god-given providence of being white, generally Protestant, male property owners (yes, I am talking about 2013) have the right to determine the rights and privileges of those individuals in lower classes. Just read the decisions of the courts in the 1800s and early 1900s to see what I mean.

It wasn't until the liberal (in the old and new since) of Earl Warren and some decisions beginning in 1915 did this view of class-based society, this conservative society beging to change. Finally, the rights of individuals began to be heard and found in the affirmative by the majority rather than quashed. The conservative supreme courts prior to then, not only found that the federal gov't had no business protecting individual rights, they also found that the states didn't either.

No doubt limited-state liberals and conservatives share many things in common, but item number 3 in my list a couple of responses ago is what separates liberals from conservatives; liberals reject in its entirty, the foundation of #3 that there are "natural" differences between classes of people and the extension that some classes have different rights than others, while conservatives, in 1700 and in 2013, embrace it,

Liberals reject conservative propositions 1, 3, 4, and 6, while socialists probably only reject #1 and 6. For conservatives of course, all 6 are fundamental tenets of conservatism. Do you reject or buy into any or all of those principles of conservatism? (remember, this is today's definition of conservatives "by" conservatives.)


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

I still contend that the list of my beliefs, if asked in the general day to day, would be called a conservative and those of someone like Obama would be called a liberal...a rose by any other name...

His views, and most on the left are diametrically opposed to mine.

The names of Democrat and Republican aside, as they are often 2 sides of the same unConstitutional coin...I will call myself a Constitutional Conservative with Libertarian leanings... and refer to those on the left as liberals...for discussions sake. It is more important to discuss views, ideas and ideals than it is to decide what each is called.

I do not know of any true conservatives that I talk to etc, that believe there is a superior race etc. (are there those people that do? yes)

It is the left that continually tries to group people and set up specialized laws, organizations etc by race, economy and gender...

3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;...this is what the liberal, the left, the Obama-types promote...not true conservatives.


Lioness 3 years ago

I agree. Personally, I believe that everyone should have the right to discriminate against race, gender, education, sexual orientation, etc.

When you take away the right to discriminate, you take away the right to hold to beliefs and opinions. The government basically says,'you can have an opinion, but it has to agree with the majority.'


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

Lioness,

Thanks for reading. I agree that it should be up to the individual business/organization owner. While I find this type of discrimination person repugnant and economically a stupid plan, it is each persons individual choice.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I think I posited this earlier in the comments, but for Lioness' benefit: if I assert that active discrimination causes real material harm (I think Mitch implied that emotional harm doesn't count as real harm), then why shouldn't there be laws protecting individuals from discrimination just like there are laws protecting a poor person from say robbery.

I put it like that because if you rob a rich person of $10, then all that does is cause emotional harm and not material harm. Or better yet, the rich person has no money in his wallet, so the robber gets nothing; consequently all you have is emotional harm.

How do reconcile one being illegal and the other not, unless you think a failed robbery should not be illegal?

Mitch, you might find this hub of mine interesting as it goes to the latest discussion we have had: http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/Do-You-Know-Who... You-Really-Are-Socialist-Liberal-or-Conservative


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

I never said emotional harm doesn't matter. It does matter from a moral context. But, do we have a right to not be offended or upset? I say no. Everyone is upset or offended by something, probably daily, yet this does not me we have the right to stop these actions merely for that reason. We do have a right to stop actions because the action will cause physical or monetary harm. If we are in a relationship that is emotionally harmful we have the right to leave that relationship. We do not have the authority to make that person stop being a jerk.

As to your scenerio of taking the $10 from a "rich" person. That is theft and there is no threshold where one's personal property becomes one's property. It is from penny one, from possession one...etc...There is a definable loss, a specific damage done. It's not that emotional damage isn't real, but that it is unquatifiable and subjective.

To your point, I don't think there should be laws against one person descriminating against an other in the PRIVATE sector. If you don't want to hire white bald guys with cowboy hats simply because they are white bald guys with cowboy hats, then that is your choice because it is your business and your capital.

Why do you believe that you should be force to hire someone simply because they want the job?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Yeah, I agree on the $10 bit, that is why I switched to nothing in the next sentence, just that the rich guy was incovienced by having to show the robber an empty wallet.

When one discriminates, it is a private matter, whether it be for a job, or being able to live in a certain neighborhood. Therefore, the question boils down to why should there be any state or federal law that protects people when no material suffering occurs. The essence of your position is that there shouldn't be such laws at any level because it infringes on somebody's right to discriminate or to threaten or to do potential, but not material harm.

Why should trespass be illegal? Doesn't it infringe on where I want to go? Why should jay-walking be illegal? Why should ... and I can come up with a thousand examples that have the same impact as discrimination does, but is illegal and generally accepted as such even by libertarians.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

Per your neighborhood question. If it was a privately owned development then yes someone could choose who to sell to. If it were just a street in a town, then no.

Trespassing is going onto someone's private property when they dart want you there. The owner of money, a shirt, a toy, a car, a property a business have the right to decide how their personal property is used. You don't have a right to so wherever you want, just as you don't have the right to take anything you want. Just us you do not have G right to be employed by someone simply because you want the job.

If I take your watch without your consent, then I have committed theft and infringed on your right to your own possessions. If I trespass on your property, then I have infringed upon your rights to your property. If I force you to hive me or someone else that you do nit wish to hire, for ANY Reason, I have infringed on your rights to your property. You business is your property, both physically and intellectually.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

You are still talking about taking material things. I am setting up the scenario where no material thing was taken and all of the harm is percieved, just as you claim is true for discriminatioin.

Trespassing is one of those crimes, driving over the speed limit when nobody gets physically hurt is another, and a failed robbery when nothing was taken. All of these things are crimes with no material consequence, yet you think the federal or state gov'ts have the right to limit your freedom of action to do those things if you feel like it.

Who cares if I drive 70 in a 60, I am a private citizen and it is my right to do that if I want, where is the harm; so what if I cut across your property to from here to there, what is the material harm; so what if I tell you you can't work for me because you are black, what material harm was done? According to your thesis about discrimination, none, nobody gets hurt and therefore doesn't deserve gov't action to prevent any of those things.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

1. As to the speed limits...I don't think the federal government should be involved in that. Local and State governments can decide on those.

2. PRIVATE property, whether a plot of land or a house or a shirt belongs to the person who owns it and THEY decide how it is used.

3. I did not not say there was no harm, perceived or actual, but that it should not be manditory for someone to hire someone to avoid that harm.

4. You are wrongly equating action vs. inaction. Not allowing you to buy my car from me is not the same as me stealing the car from someone else.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Mitch, that is simply the bottom line. The problem with you conservatives is this Marlboro man persona when in reality, my tax money subsidizes the very existance of most of your so called private businesses. I pay for the health inspectors that ensure that the greasy spoon restaurant is up to code. I have to pay whatever taxes you do not pay based on write-offs in the tax code for small business and large ones too. That is just the tip of the iceburg, there are a lot of services that support your business due to the concept of collectivism from the masses that do not financially benefit them in any way.

So the picture that I draw is that you simply are not free to do whatever you want. If you want the things that you ask for in the article, use your home address as a place to gather and employ friends and members of your family for Sunday dinner.

A private organization is not a public accomdation, so the comparison you attempt to make is not applicable. This is not going to wash nowhere at no time in near future. That is one libertarian concept that is dead on arrival. Compelling article, thanks


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

Credence, I'm against all government subsidies for all businesses, so you point on that is moot. I do not believe in corporatism, but instead capitalism...two different things that most poeple don't understand. I agree that all citizens should be afforded the same protection under the law, police and firemen, use of roads, voting, protection under the Bill of Rights etc. I do not agree with a private business being told who they can and can't hire, serve etc. I also don't believe that the federal government should mandate that a citizen or business must purchase a product or service that hey do not want.

Also, the term "you Conservatives" is meant as a derrogatory statement, but I'm proud to support the Constitution, Freedom, Liberty and those values. The "Marlboro man" is a new one and I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm assuming it too was an attept at putting me down.

If you had the desire, the capability and drive to open a business of your own, then you, Credence, should be the only one to decide your company policy...not me, not your neighbors and certainly not the federal government.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

No offense meant, Mitch.

What about health inspectors for public accomodation restaurants?

I will determine policy about the restaurant I own within the purview of federal and state law, not outside of it.

Sorry, the Marlboro man was the iconic image for the marlboro cigarrete brand on TV commercials during the 1960's. He was the epitome of independence and self reliance as the cowboy on his mount. Oddly enough the man that played this icon had died of lung cancer a few years later. Sorry, I date myself, not everyone is aware of these things. My point is whether we like it or not we live in an intedependent world.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

I know who the Marlboro man is/was and that he died from cancer, what I didn't understand was how he fit into the discussion at hand.

Why are things with the left either central planning or nihilism? What can a federal food agency (not ennumerated power, by the way) do that a local or maybe State one couldn't? Simply saying that there is no power given to the federal government, and there is not, to be involved with education, energy, food etc., is not to say that there can't be local laws and State laws.

Also, the article is about hiring, firing etc within a private business or organization.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

I did not disagree with the idea of state or local government purview in lieu of federal involvement when it is appropriate, and in this area it is probably appropriate most of the time.

But certain things have be done in regards to the establishments and its compliance with ordinances and such, that is just the way it is.

I get the gist of your article, my reply is if your example wants to hire and fire as it pleases, there can be absolutely no point of intersection between I as a taxpayer, my resources and the operation of such a business even in the most insignificant way. I am not willing to give anything to any business establishment that will not allow me an equal opportunity to be hired or served, period. Ask your business community are they willing to live with that? Can they operate in a vacuum? I doubt it.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

See, there is the point. You and I would never make race, gender or ethnicity the deciding factor in who we hire, fire or serve. I'm assuming for you it is personally reprehensible, as it is to me. It would also not be a good business choice in most cases, as well. If someone followed my example in the article, they would most likely go out of business. The market would take care of that. Your argument from the tax payers point of view should not be an issue, as we are talking about a private company. As a paying customer, or by not being a customer, is how the choice is made.

Should a Chinese restaurant be able to say "no white bald guys need apply for the waitstaff position"? YES, they should be allowed to do that. Should someone who had a bad experience with a Catholic nun as a child be able to decide not to hire Catholics? YES. It is the business owner's capital. This capital can be any combination of financal, intellectual and sweat equity.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

And again, there is no ennumerated power given to the federal government to be involved with these things. The 10th Amendment further clarifies the restrictions on the federal government. It isn't a matter of whether either of us think the federal government should or should not be involved. It is Constitutionally excluded from most of the things it has gotten it's hands into.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

I hear you, Mitch, but seeing that you would have to have a license as a public accomodation, (issued by the state or municipality, of course)the issuance of which and administration therof imposes costs to the taxpayer, you would resist this form of subsidy. So, I guess what you end up with is just an extension of your private residence. Of course, there is no argument about what you can do there. With the restraints I must put upon your model you really won't have a restaurant left.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

There have been legal minds far exceeding either yours or mine, that has said that social Security was within the purview of federal power? Do we go back to a pre-1929 model? Just like communism, libertarianism is theoretical with no truly working examples anywhere. We are always going to disagree on the nature of federal power verses the state or that of the individual.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

Do we go back pre-1930 when there were no marriage licences and the government didn't own marriage? YES...Do we go back before there was a FED and the corruption of the monetary system by it? YES...Do we go back to a mindset of personal responsibility instead of "nanny statism"? YES...Do we work on undoing corporatism and reducing the size and scope of the federal government to fit within it's ennumerated powers? YES...

I am a Constitutional Conservative with Libertarian leanings. A small Constitutional federal government (not national), 10th Amendment States acting a THESE United States, not THE United States...

There were legal minds that said segragation was ok to enforce by law, too...and they were wrong. Besides, even IF social security, as it was set up, was Constitutional (I contend it wasn't) it most certainly is not now.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

I have to step away for an hour or two , but as Arnold says, "Ill be back"


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mitch, I am not sure what you mean by "corporatism", but assuming this is applying to the business world and not the political one, I ask - how can not have corporatism in a capitalist environment. After all, monoloplies and oligopolies are the natural off-spring in an industrialized world; in other words, capitalism, left unchecked, must end up with this configuration.

You keep refering to enumerated powers of the Constitution; that strict interpretation of the Constitution was dropped by the Supreme Court, both Left and Right sides, just after the turn of the century, the 19th Century. The constituional question the Court answers today is "does the Federal government have the enumerated or implied power to do such and such". One of the reasons for this, of course, is the Court understood, and the writers agreed, that all of the possible variations of enumerated powers for then and for posterity could not be listed in a single document.

Just for the record, your version of the configuration of the united States and the Constitution's signers version of the United States are worlds apart. You described the Continental Congress while in the first two weeks of the Constitutional debate, it was decided the word "Supreme" would be used relating the Federal government to the State governments.

Somehow I don't think "Supreme" fits with your vision. They did not see a nation made of of 13 quaralling states and an ineffective central government, that was what they were trying to discard. Instead they envisioned a United States, acting as one (as far as the rest of the world was concerned), with a Supreme Federal government with sufficient, but not unlimited, power to make sure the citizens would have the Tranquility, Justice, common Defense, general Welfare, and Liberty/Propertity the Constitution promised.

Don't confuse active state liberals (Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, F. Roosevelt through Clinton, and Obama - Reagan was one in his own, but different way) with Socialists, nilhists, or Communists; they have few things in common.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Well, it is now the conservatives that want the government to 'own' marriage.

This is a complicated world, if these relationships and associated responsibilities are not dealt with on a contractural basis, havoc would reign supreme. So if I were married and choose to walk away, then the marriage is dissolved and since there is no proof that I was ever married, how could I abandon my kids?

You guys speak in terms of powdered wigs and knee breeches in a complicated world. Am I hearing that you oppose federal involvement, not so much state and municipal government? In the earlier days of the auto they probably did not have driver's licenses either, do you think that is appropriate today?

Your personal responsibility was easily seen as universal exploitation of a form of capitalism that knew no bounds. What you consider out of bounds is a perfect fit and may well not be tight enough for others....

The reality is that your vision will never be realized, Ron Paul did not do that well even among standard conservatives. So how do you propose to bring this nirvana of yours to fruition?


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey Author

Corpratism is the melding of business and government. An unholy alliance that is not the free-market of capitalism, but is too often paraded around as such by those that want to end capitalism. The government should have a very limited role in setting parameters on private business, and this mostly at the local level...and there should be no actual involvement in business from the government. No favortism, no "deals". There is nothing wrong with a business that is "big", but there is a problem where a business is made "big" by this type of alliance.

The fact that many, including the courts, have moved away from the heart and true meaning of the Constitution over the past 6-8 decades or so, is indeed the reason we have the problems we have. The government, especially on the federal level, is not and can not be the answer. It is why we have out of control deficit and debt, overbrearing regulations and taxes, a diminishing level of freedom and liberty...

A true Constitutional Conservative does NOT want the government to own marriage. Don't confuse some in the Republican party with Cponservatives...not the same.

I never said that there can't be legal contracts for property, living wills etc. They do exist and should be used. I'm saying that the government should not be in the marriage business. If the church that someone attends wants to marry only men and women, then that is their right. If another church wants to marry men to men, then that would be their choice. But, neither should have any legal ramifications.

I do oppose the federal government's involvement in marriage as they have no Constitutional power to do so. Why can't States decide the driver's licence laws for their own States?

Why does it have to be either central planning or nihilism with liberals?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

OK, I see and yes, that is a problem, depending on how it is constructed. There is configuration of public-private partnership that could benefit the whole society but I doubt the human nature would allow it to exist longer than a nanosecond. Consequently, that leaves us with your position which I, in the main, agree with. Obviously, being an active state liberal, I can find reasons for exceptions.

In our laissez-faire past, the Federal gov't made a point not to regulate business, but it wasn't totally laissez-faire. It wasn't because gov't always promoted business, it just didn't get in the way. Personally, I think that should be one of the jobs of gov't - to promote business here and abroad; again because it is good for society as a whole.

But, I also feel strongly in the need for realistic regulation with teeth in them to protect the labor, other citizens and the environment from the excesses of business.

Yes, the gov't, all gov't should stay out of the marriage wars. There should be only civil unions at the gov't level in order to confer the monetary aspects of a union. Marriage, because it is religious creation, should be left up to the churches.

I didn't know states didn't have 100% control over their DL laws, outside of national security concerns.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working