DJS,
I started writing this response and the thread grew quickly. I notice that you posted your response from another thread, one that I had been involved with as well. However, I was unable then to respond due to time constraints. I will respond now, and in the other thread.
You assume opponents of your view are haters. I submit that this is just a way for you to label those opposing your view without actually addressing the substance and logic. I also noticed that the stand-by slander of “parroting Fox News” was brought out a couple of times. Another way of dodging. I can’t speak for mrhhome, but I don’t watch Fox, and I’m pretty sure they don’t say what I’m about to write.
First of all, I don’t hate homosexuals. I actually don’t care at all. I have a firm belief that government should stay out of the private contracts of individuals. To me that means if a gay couple wishes to enter into a marriage contract, great. It also means that if a group of people wish to enter a polygamous relationship, great! I honestly don’t have a problem with it. Read that again if you get the urge to claim I am full of hate.
But there are other reasons why these court decisions are a bad idea - reasons that have little to do with sexual orientation, or race.
Alright bitcches, listen up. Professor DJS is going to give you an overview of how economics and ethics work together in modern day capitalistic countries. And for those of you who wonder, yes, I have studied both subjects at the Master’s level and taught, for several years, both subjects at the college level.
Ok. Nothing like an appeal to authority to give everyone the proper perspective.
Organizations and businesses are egoist, which means their decisions are typically based on self interest and that this is just and proper. Profit is not a dirty word, for example. Capitalism was built on this, and it works well – to a point.
“Egoist” is an odd way of describing the profit motive. Businesses are, and should be, concerned about profit, as you point out. In doing so, in order to gain profit, businesses have to satisfy the wants and needs of others. They indeed are concerned about their own self-interest, but they can satisfy that self-interest only by serving others. Businesses don’t isolate and focus solely on themselves. They must focus on the customer in order to focus on themselves. That is, unless they get some special privilege from the government, which is the real problem most of the time.
The U.S. government rests on the foundation of the Constitution (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and general welfare for all), and operates typically in a utilitarian manner, (for the common good), which means that actions should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals, or all of society, and would seek a balance of justice, freedom and fairness. The Constitution (which was a revolutionary document crafted by visionaries) is predicated on these concepts.
You reference the Constitution and you make specific reference to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (in Declaration of Independence), and then jump right to the General Welfare clause (in the Constitution) for justification for what is about to come next. On this point, I am worried. The General Welfare clause does not mean that anything goes as long as there is sufficient political support. If it meant this, why write the rest of the Constitution, which limits the power of government to specific enumerated powers?
Balancing these two views is the skill-set which makes great countries. Both are correct. One isn’t ‘right’ and one isn’t ‘wrong.’
Hang on there. Applying the General Welfare clause to mean “anything goes” is most definitely incorrect.
Governments in capitalistic countries seek to create a thriving business environment for a strong economy while balancing the need for regulation (environment, social, etc.), justice and fairness for all. But governments, according to Adam Smith’s perfect model, shouldn’t directly support or subsidize businesses, unless those businesses impact the country’s ability to feed and protect itself. Otherwise, failing businesses should be allowed to fail. Textiles? Let them go to Mexico and replace textiles with semi-conductors. Banks? Let them fail and be absorbed by other banks. Chrysler? Let it go the way of the wind and see what type of Phoenix, more beautiful and efficient, is re-born in its place. The recent bailout of the banks deemed to be TBTF (too big to fail) was more political response than reality. Other banks would have absorbed the failed ones, and the economy would have rebounded stronger for it. But many weren’t able to accept the short-term political and economic impact.
I agree, the bailouts were politically motivated. And the problems were originally caused by political policy as well.
That’s the way Adam Smith envisioned a perfect economic model. He was right. But we humans – and our congressmen/women - don’t want the textile industry to go away if we depend on it for food or political power. We don’t want Chrysler to fail if we work for Chrysler or within the supply chain. And so on. The egoist, some of which rail against government controls, etc., seeks assistance from the universalist when they need it (bail me out, subsidize me, build a wall around me, keep those mean Chinese away, increase tariffs, etc.). As expected. The egoist will always think of themselves first and last.
The “egoist” should be told “no” from the government. And in fact, the government shouldn’t have the power to even say “yes” … period. The fault is not in the profit motive, the fault is that special interests are able to get an audience with the government.
This is one reason why it is ultimately absurd to say that special interests (the businesses seeking unfair advantage), gaining government audience (creating a supposed “balance”), has anything to do with the General Welfare. Even if the Constitution could be read that way, businesses that are able to use the rule of law to gain a competitive advantage do the exact opposite - they sacrifice general welfare for special interests. If you are concerned about general welfare, then the first thing you should be want to do is remove the government from the market.
The egoist (businesses) also seeks assistance from the universalist (government) by lobbying for and demanding better roads, schools, airports, utilities, etc. to help its business thrive. So it comes off as more than a bit hypocritical for a business, a completely egoist enterprise, to think it can serve only who it wishes, especially when it has asked and gotten so much from the government – which has a competing interest of the common good for all – that has helped make their business thrive. And how many of you haters have or have had government backed school and/or home loans, lived in subsidized housing, were on food stamps, welfare, WIC, worker's comp, etc., etc.. To paint with such a broad brush about the mean ole violent government, especially when one has benefited from it so much, is hypocritical.
Some businesses do lobby government, but it is usually the ones that can’t compete in a free market and need the rule of law to provide some competitive advantage. Again, the government should say “Sorry, this is beyond our scope of power”. But not all businesses seek government. Most want government to get out of the way because it is government that is giving other businesses an unfair advantage.
On a side note: it is a bit absurd to think that private business can, without central planning, produce cities of tall skyscrapers, and yet, only the state could actually produce a flat slab of asphalt for cars to drive on.
But putting all that aside for a moment, and assuming that the government is the only entity that could produce roads, even though I do not agree, how does that buy away the private property rights of the business owner? Are you saying that because society as a whole (and this is debatable too) has decided to collectively impose a tax to produce roads, a tax that the business owner pays too, it means that a business owner actually doesn’t own the business? After all, only a business with private property rights (the right to do what they choose with their property) would be able to refuse to provide service to gay couple, a black person, a white person, a yellow person, polygamous groups, or anything else, for whatever reason. I would ask, by what principle do you claim private property rights can be undermined, and what are its limits? If you are to say that a business owner must serve a person he/she doesn’t want to serve because of being gay or black, what logically prevents you from forcing the business owner into servitude for any number of other reasons?
I have seen several other responses on this thread indicating that since the business services the public, the public aught to have some say in the matter. Since all businesses seek voluntary exchange with customers (the public), I guess that would mean that all businesses are not privately owned. With no clear cut dividing between what the “public” (i.e. government) can do and can’t do, there is no real private ownership.
Those businesses which discriminate against others, even or especially based on their own peronal relgious beliefs, are on very shaky ground when it comes to the U.S. egoist/universalist capitalistic environment and the U.S. Constitution. To try to hide behind religion is a sham, and the courts have consistently upheld the rights of all citizens when they faced such discrimination. Courts in state after state are ruling that discriminating against gays is unconstitutional and numerous anti-gay marriage laws have been overturned (many of these decisions are currently stayed based on appeal).
This is true. Many courts are on your side of the argument. I think they are wrong… Not in regards to the morality of discrimination, mind you. I completely agree with the sentiment. I think they are wrong on Constitutional grounds, on the grounds of eroding private property rights. If you are a business owner and you refuse service to a gay couple or to a black man or a yellow man, I feel you are a jerk. But even the greatest jerk in the world should not be made to enter involuntary servitude. Think about it, you are forcing, by law, someone to serve people he/she doesn’t want to serve. How is this any different than the slavery you wish to reject?
This “right” you are asserting is a “positive right”, which isn’t a right at all, it is an entitlement. Ultimately it will conflict with actual true “negative rights”. If you are unsure of the difference, this man explains it very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOEkj6Jz44
Follow it through logically: The gay couple in New Mexico, for example, were not just demanding a positive right to service. They were demanding a positive right to QUALITY service, equal service. It is logical that if we are going to force someone to service an individual or group he/she doesn’t want to serve, most likely, the performance will be much poorer than if the exchange were voluntary. So based on the current direction of all the courts, would the gay couple have yet another claim against the photographer? Would they be able to now claim that discrimination was still in play here because they received poor quality pictures? But it gets worse than that even. What would happen if the disgruntled photographer were to wear a T-shirt to wedding that states, “I don’t agree with gay weddings”? The wise court would have to step in again, because otherwise, surely there would be discrimination. Public accommodation must be satisfied. But what have we limited now?
Deal with it haters.
Nothing like poising the well to put everything in perspective.
Let’s try this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/antonio-darden/
Antonio Darden was a hair dresser for Governor Susana Martinez, also New Mexico. A few years back, he decided on ideological grounds to refuse service to the Governor. He was gay, and the Governor was opposed to same sex marriage. As you can see in the link, Antonio was praised. Nobody ever mentioned, “Hey, you have a business that serves the public, and your beliefs don’t matter, you still have to serve the Governor.” Both the photographer in NM and the hair dresser in NM exercised their private property rights.
Don’t get me wrong, the hair dresser was well within his rights to do that. But don’t you see the legal double standard? One person’s private property is undermined, the other is upheld. Based on what? On whether or not the person’s social views were in sync with the popular view. As mrhhome said “... it is a really, really bad precedent…”
MMM
