Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (80699)	6/14/2004 7:09:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Please keep in mind that the government supposedly represents a consensus of the values of her constituents. The government is "WE, THE PEOPLE." Which is exactly why the government should face tighter requirements then the private sector. Individuals or businesses aren't supposed to represent a consensus of the values of the people at large but rather their own values. In extreme cases it's necessary to impose values on the private sector (for example the value that murder is wrong should be imposed) but the justification for imposing such values by force on individuals has to be greater then the justification needed to impose values on government organizations and officials acting as officials. Another difference between the public sector and the private sector is that, at least in the US and I believe a few other countries, there is a constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law. This requirement is not normally relevant to purely private sector interactions. It might be relevant to government regulations or laws about those private sector interactions but those laws or regulations are acts of government. When the woman says "NO" and the man says "yes", they are both discriminating in the private sector. Your taking the subject away from a narrow focus on discrimination. There may be an element of discrimination in just about any interaction you have with the rest of the world but when people talk about what forms of discrimination should be legal and what should be illegal, they aren't questioning if people have a right to say no to sex. Look at the actual areas of controversy that have been part of the public debate, been dealt with by laws or regulations, or been the subject of court cases. Should people be able to hire or fire who they want? Should they be able to provide services to some people but not to others? How blatant or damaging should the discrimination have to be before the government forcibly intervenes? You say that the government is supposed to represent a consensus of the values of the people. Most people want the government to either not base its hiring on race. A law prohibiting the government to make hiring decisions based on race would be a case where we are making sure that the government follows the will of the people. A law imposing a similar restriction on the private sector is controlling the individual to make them follow the will of the majority and is IMO unjust. Tim