"Right to Discriminate" Bill

Phml said:

Public services are not businesses.

Yes they are.

Things like transportation, road networks, mail services, phone communications, news broadcasts, gas, power, water and other utilities were once considered to be public services; now they are businesses. Public schools and hospitals have to compete with private schools and hospitals. Cops, too. Private security contractors are used more and more. Even justice is concerned, as some legal conflicts can be solved by private arbitrators instead of public courts. (Heard of the Tapie/Lagarde story?)

And on the flipside, nation states try to deal with an ever-inflating debt by cutting fundings to what remains of public services, closing down classrooms and removing beds from hospitals, forcing people to choose between shitty underfunded and overcrowded public services or expensive private offers. By and large, the heterodox financial view of public services is that they should be managed like private businesses, that is to say, they should either turn a profit or disappear entirely.

Public services are on their way out. They're the dying remnants of an extinct way of life; they have no place in the hyper-competitive world of today where the only measure of merit, virtue, truth, beauty, and everything else is how much of a profit it can turn. Public services do not matter because, fifty years from now, there will not be any of them around anymore.

Gez said:

Yes they are.

Things like transportation, road networks, mail services, phone communications, news broadcasts, gas, power, water and other utilities were once considered to be public services; now they are businesses. Public schools and hospitals have to compete with private schools and hospitals. Cops, too. Private security contractors are used more and more. Even justice is concerned, as some legal conflicts can be solved by private arbitrators instead of public courts. (Heard of the Tapie/Lagarde story?)

And on the flipside, nation states try to deal with an ever-inflating debt by cutting fundings to what remains of public services, closing down classrooms and removing beds from hospitals, forcing people to choose between shitty underfunded and overcrowded public services or expensive private offers. By and large, the heterodox financial view of public services is that they should be managed like private businesses, that is to say, they should either turn a profit or disappear entirely.

Public services are on their way out. They're the dying remnants of an extinct way of life; they have no place in the hyper-competitive world of today where the only measure of merit, virtue, truth, beauty, and everything else is how much of a profit it can turn. Public services do not matter because, fifty years from now, there will not be any of them around anymore.

I don't know in what world you are living in, but at least where I live there is nothing suggesting that public services are going away any time soon. Oh sure, there are some things that could use more private involvement, but to make some insane statement like "in 50 years there will be no public services" is just laughably ignorant.

And everything has to turn a profit? What about law and order then? How are you going to make money of crime? Attemtps at private prisons in countries like the UK and the US have been big failures and the center of a number of big scandals, so clearly the private sector does not do everything better then the government does.

This reminds me of a law that was passed in some state a few years ago where you would get a fine for having loose pants that show off your undergarments.

When i saw the thread title i thought there was something about clinton or bill nye the science guy. Now I'm disappointed

AndrewB said:

In what sense? Being unable to patronize the establishments?

They cannot participate in the local community and economy which you might imagine can impair their ability to live life as a normal person would. Moreover being economically disadvantaged means they often have great difficulty actually leaving the area should they desire it.

Being economically disadvantaged tends to have that effect no matter who you are or where you live.

Oh, so discrimination is a-ok because they're too poor to afford anything anyway? Right on.

Quast said:

Oh, so discrimination is a-ok because they're too poor to afford anything anyway? Right on.

But what you're describing isn't even discrimination. If I'm refused service at a restaurant because I can't pay, that's just the way it is.

DooMAD said:

The world can't function like that.

Oh yes it does, and sometimes the "exclusivity" of a service is used as a marketing point: think e.g. face control/admission checks at night clubs. Of course, usually FIRST they check you out and THEN decide if they'll let you in and serve you, otherwise they don't admit you at all in their joint.

Agreed, a night club where e.g. the bouncers let you in only to kick you out as soon as you order a drink would quite not work (and the manager would be quite an asshole). But none ever complained about night clubs screening people at the entreance. Well, maybe someone did....but it seems to be an accepted/established practice. The official reason given for screenin is "security" and unofficially, keeping the male-to-female ratio within certain limits (sausage fests aren't cool unless it's a gay club). Some even check to see "if you're good looking enough".

Pretty sure all the people in this thread supporting the right to discriminate are straight white males. It's fine that private business owners should be able to discriminate because you'll never be on the receiving end of it, right?

Capitalism being capitalism. Oh, the injustice.

fraggle said:

Pretty sure all the people in this thread supporting the right to discriminate are straight white males.

Privilege Status: Unchecked.

AndrewB said:

But what you're describing isn't even discrimination. If I'm refused service at a restaurant because I can't pay, that's just the way it is.

You are wholly misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying people that cannot afford something are being discriminated against on that basis, but for other reasons. Rather, these groups coincidentally tend to be poor to begin with. Even then, wealth is almost irrelevant when what matters most in this regard is social and political power. Your very subtle godwin example earlier in the thread itself is a testament to that.

But that's not even the point I was trying to originally make. I was attempting to point out the absurdity that 'discrimination should be allowed because either a shop will go out of business or those who are discriminated against can just pack up and move'. Neither of those scenarios, from a historical perspective are realistic without laws in place to prevent it from happening.

Arizona is swift to put the law to good use

GeckoYamori said:

Arizona is swift to put the law to good use

It's all balancing it's self out.

fraggle said:

Pretty sure all the people in this thread supporting the right to discriminate are straight white males.

Well, in theory a muslim shop owner could refuse service to christians, as I'm sure is already happening in muslim-majority countries where whites and/or christians are NOT seen primarily as tourists. I'm pretty sure that you'll find a lot of places all around the world where some establishments might only "do business with the locals". It might be something as obscure as a stand full of mummified gorilla forearms for voodoo use in a Western Africa, but it's there.

AFAIK no major religion teaches race discrimination though: Islam is notoriously non-racist, Christianity is obviously at least tolerant, seeing to how many people it was evangelized....I'm not sure about Judaism: is the discrimination (calling others goyim) purely racial (non-semites) or simply non-jews? Because that too would be hypocritical, seeing how most Jews are practically eastern european and some are pretty aryan-looking...

Ah right, there's Mormonism which (I believe) teach that somehow "yellow" and "brown" men were somehow descended from inferior/disgraced heavenly beings.

Now, Japanese state Shintoism was notoriously racist, but that was more of a propaganda tool than an actual religion. Not sure about Buddhism's and Hinduism's stance....

fraggle said:

It's fine that private business owners should be able to discriminate because you'll never be on the receiving end of it, right?

Actually that's pretty common practice in drinking establishments/night clubs and -in years now bygone- even arcade rooms. Of course, you had to be a notorious troublemaker, and most of these places aren't 100% clean themselves to begin with.

It's pretty impossible for racism to be compatible with Buddhism. The end of the cycle of existence depends upon all beings eventually attaining enlightenment. Until that happens, Buddhas will continue to be reborn into the world to teach the dharma to the unenlightened. Perhaps not surprisingly, before the true dharma is revealed is supposed to come an age of utmost moral deprivation where mankind overwhelmingly rejects the paths of enlightenment, and many Buddhists believe that age is the present day.

At any rate, Buddhism spread from its origins in India into southeast Asia, China, and Japan without regard to racial boundaries. Its expansion in the westward direction was checked largely by the sudden advance of Islam.

hardcore_gamer said:

I don't know in what world you are living in, but at least where I live there is nothing suggesting that public services are going away any time soon.

It's funny hearing that from you, since you live in -literally- the most remote backwater of Scandinavian countries (which have a notoriously over-generous welfare state) while Gez is a Red Blooded American (amirite?), the Land of the Free. What's considered normal for you (and 300.000 Icelanders) is different (and less influential worldwide) than what's considered normal for 300.000.000 Americans.

Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a wedding photographer for refusing to take their wedding pictures.

I think the problem begins with this, if someone doesn't want to work for you, you shouldn't force them to do it.

On the other hand, this seems like a first world problem to me.

Maes said:

Gez is a Red Blooded American (amirite?), the Land of the Free.

Don't know why, but I get the impression Gez is German.

Back on topic (more or less) - Once the "Annual Cull of Stupid People" bill is passed, I'm applying for a hunting permit and intend to start with the legislators.

Maes said:

It's funny hearing that from you, since you live in -literally- the most remote backwater of Scandinavian countries (which have a notoriously over-generous welfare state) while Gez is a Red Blooded American (amirite?), the Land of the Free. What's considered normal for you (and 300.000 Icelanders) is different (and less influential worldwide) than what's considered normal for 300.000.000 Americans.

Even if so, there are still some things which the state is probably always going to do regardless of nation. Its pretty much accepted even among the libertarians (not counting the extreme/crazy ones) that the state has to exist to take care of at least certain things such as roads and law enforcement, as well as the army. This means that even if the future ends up seeing a reduction of public services, the state will still exist.

hardcore_gamer said:

the state has to exist to take care of at least certain things such as roads and law enforcement, as well as the army

The least-common-denominator for a state to exist as such, is controlling just these two things you mentioned, so that it doesn't get overthrown/invaded directly. In theory, even police/internal law enforcement or at least some aspects of it (e.g. traffic police) could be outsourced, as well as international military involvements. In this case, the state would only retain a sort of "loyalist guard" composed by a fraction of the current armed forces, just enough to keep law enforcements and hired mercs from turning against them.

But roads, those are a prime example of something that's getting increasingly subcontracted and privatized, not only for what regards their building, but also their management/economic exploitation. E.g. in Greece, the newly-finished "Egnatia Odos" (the equivalent of a German Autobahn, so to speak) is nearly 100% privately owned, and most of the profits are privatized, despite the huge amounts of public money that went into it. The result? Toll prices have went up 300% in the last 3 years, to the point that just the tolls to get from place A to B are easily worth more than the price of the fuel used.

Sometimes, the state even "forgets" or "omits" to build courtesy "free" public roads granting access to a place, despite the relevant tax money having already been paid by everybody's pockets, in theory, so you don't even have the alternative of NOT using the privately-owned road anymore. Oh and did I mention that this way the roads are in the hand of just one or two construction oligarchs? How "cool" is that, for a true libertarian?

In other EU countries, e.g. Italy, the equivalent "Autostrade" are also run by a semi-private company (Autostrade S.r.L.) but at least the tolls are much more reasonable than in Greece, and their roads are much better maintained than public/state roads.

Honestly, I'm not surprised by this. It's been apparent for years now that Arizona is the most racist, sexist, homophobic, trash state in the US.

Takes skill to stay on top, what with the competition from the other red states.

CorSair said:

But could an atheist shopkeeper discriminate catholic redneck? If no, this bill sucks balls.

Not in a million years. The fundamentalist Christian theocrats that run Arizona are the biggest hypocrits in the world. They'll scream bloody murder at the prospect of a Christian being forced to serve an Atheist or gay person, but if an Atheist or gay person refused to serve a Christian, all hell would break loose and the state of Arizona would fine them every penny they have and imprison them for years.

hardcore_gamer said:

Even if so, there are still some things which the state is probably always going to do regardless of nation. Its pretty much accepted even among the libertarians (not counting the extreme/crazy ones) that the state has to exist to take care of at least certain things such as roads and law enforcement, as well as the army. This means that even if the future ends up seeing a reduction of public services, the state will still exist.

Highways are privatized in many countries, as Maes already said. (Usually with a scheme that they're built with public money, but benefits go in private pockets. This is known as socializing losses and privatizing profits, and is The Way Things Ought To Be Done according to the IMF, the WTO, all banks of all kinds, any and all politician to the right of Karl Marx, every single financial media in existence, and everybody else with some amount of power or influence.

Law enforcement is increasingly privatized, thanks to communities increasingly relying on Rent-A-Cop security. Same for the Army, that's what Blackwater and similar are for. Combat drones are likely to feature increasingly in these solutions, since they allow to drastically reduce the number of employees (soldiers and policemen are employees after all), and they are not likely to refuse orders to open fire on a crowd.

The world of tomorrow is a bunch of walled communities hosting the 1%, policed by private security contractors and offering all needed and superfluous services inside the walls. Outside the walls will he the great unwashed masses left to fend for themselves with what few scraps of resources would be too expensive to try to pry from them. They'll have no education, no healthcare, and no security of course, so it'll be Mad Max out there.

Gez said:

Highways are privatized in many countries, as Maes already said. (Usually with a scheme that they're built with public money, but benefits go in private pockets. This is known as socializing losses and privatizing profits, and is The Way Things Ought To Be Done according to the IMF, the WTO, all banks of all kinds, any and all politician to the right of Karl Marx, every single financial media in existence, and everybody else with some amount of power or influence.

Law enforcement is increasingly privatized, thanks to communities increasingly relying on Rent-A-Cop security. Same for the Army, that's what Blackwater and similar are for. Combat drones are likely to feature increasingly in these solutions, since they allow to drastically reduce the number of employees (soldiers and policemen are employees after all), and they are not likely to refuse orders to open fire on a crowd.

The world of tomorrow is a bunch of walled communities hosting the 1%, policed by private security contractors and offering all needed and superfluous services inside the walls. Outside the walls will he the great unwashed masses left to fend for themselves with what few scraps of resources would be too expensive to try to pry from them. They'll have no education, no healthcare, and no security of course, so it'll be Mad Max out there.

Again, these kind of nightmare scenarios you are describing is rubbish and just smacks of left-leaning scaremongering.

You do realize that the US isn't the entire world right? Most of Europe, and especially scandinavia, have large governments with there being little suggesting that any of the things you have mentioned are going to happen.

Do you even realize the irony of your post? You don't believe the leftist scaremongering, because your own microcountry is safely tucked away in a haven of leftist big states and regulations. The leftist fools from the rest of the world where right wing policies run rampant should embrace them instead of berating them, because... the left wing policies seem to work in your country despite you disliking it. And I'm getting lost. What's your position? You seem to be defending large government while praising the opposite.

@hardcore_gamer: I'm pretty sure he means the "world of tomorrow" as a figure of speech it pertains to the US, where this particular bill took place. As in, the "world" being a point in time rather than literally encompassing the whole world.

Though, to be on-topic, I would like to point out that while the situation would be little better, I don't see us heading toward a Mad Max future, just on account of rich people wanting to travel outside their walls. I'm more inclined to believe that we're heading toward thinly-veiled serfdom, personally.

dew said:

Do you even realize the irony of your post? You don't believe the leftist scaremongering, because your own microcountry is safely tucked away in a haven of leftist big states and regulations. The leftist fools from the rest of the world where right wing policies run rampant should embrace them instead of berating them, because... the left wing policies seem to work in your country despite you disliking it. And I'm getting lost. What's your position? You seem to be defending large government while praising the opposite.

Except that Iceland (and Scandinavia to a lesser degree) isn't anywhere near as "left-leaning" as people say it is. The markets are very free for the most part, and regulation isn't that tough compared to a lot of countries. The "big government" part comes mainly in the form of the welfare state.

A better example of a true leftist-nation would be current France with its socialist president.

hardcore_gamer said:

A better example of a true leftist-nation would be current France with its socialist president.

Nonsense. He just inflicted some taxes on the richest, that's what Scandinavia is famous for, isn't it? In other aspects Hollande seems to follow the principles of Blair and Schroder, bringing the left towards the center and borrowing policies from the right. It's just funny how loud the richest caste got the moment someone touched their money.

hardcore_gamer said:

Except that Iceland (and Scandinavia to a lesser degree) isn't anywhere near as "left-leaning" as people say it is.

Yeah, the country that told bankers to go get fucked instead of giving them all the money they were asking for isn't left-leaning, right.

hardcore_gamer said:

A better example of a true leftist-nation would be current France with its socialist president.

Hahahahahaha

Hollande is typical of modern European leftism: very liberal on societal questions (like pushing hard for gay marriage even though there already was a civil union contract available to same-sex couples, making it not really an urgently-needed reform) but a complete doormat wrt. the financial sector, abandoning instantly any and all promises to increase taxes for the wealthy and large companies and firing the environment ministers who displease industrials. Did he do anything about the TTIP? Noap! A true leftist government would have immediately sent that thing to the garbage bin.

dew said:

It's just funny how loud the richest caste got the moment someone touched their money.

Yeah, you heard the poor little darlings, they're persecuted! It's like a Kristallnacht all the time for them, the poor defenseless babies. It's not like decades of "trickle-down" Reaganomics haven't left their tax brackets at an all-time low while the economic crises that they have orchestrated for speculative purposes destroyed millions of livelihoods, noooo.... Class warfare is only from the all-powerful arrogant poor against the oppressed wealthy elite.

Fuckers deserve a real Kristallnacht.