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 (80702)	6/17/2004 3:30:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

IMO if the government interferes in the freedom of association of individuals that is what is in violation of rights. I agree that that in many cases the type of discrimination forbidden by law are odious, and that people (and by extension governments) have an interest in seeing such discrimination reduced or eliminated but I don't think that interest justified trampling on individual rights by regulating away freedom of association. The government should follow the general consensus on such matters so it should not practice such forms of discrimination. Also even if the general consensus against such discrimination was not clear the government is bound to treat people equally under the law by the constitution. Individuals and businesses face no such constitutional requirements and do not face the general requirement of complying with the general consensus of opinion except in extreme cases. But firing someone and perhaps causing their life to collapse and their children to hunger JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE A CERTAIN COLOUR OR GENDER seems to me to require an explanation from those who support it. I don't support it but I do support the freedom to do it. Firing someone because of their color or gender causes harm. Firing someone because you don't like them personally or even firing them for legitimate cause also causes harm. Its not reasonable to impose a regime where the government is supposed to protect people from all harm, or even all deliberate harm. Telling someone that they can't fire someone they want to fire or must fit their hiring, lending, or selling decisions around some socially selected pattern also causes harm. The essence of society is that people have rights and that governments and laws are in place to preserve and protect those rights. Your freedom of association is your right. Having a particular job, or house, or apartment or other business or social relationship or contract is not. You don't have a right to any particular job or to a guarantee of having any job. So why should they make up their minds individually when it comes to raping or violating other human rights in general?? Rape is a violation of someone's human rights. Firing someone or not hiring them, or refusing to lend them money, or sell them property is not a violation of their rights. Forcing someone to hire someone they don't want to hire is a violation of their rights. Tim