Chick-Fil-A President: Men shouldn't eat other men's chicken

[volprof]

Proliferation of information has effected the changes and made unions obsolete.

Accessibility of information didn't stop the company town system, mandatory 14 to 16 hour days, child labor, corporate thuggery, etc. However, to your point about today, yes, accessibility of information certainly helps workers, and it helps keep businesses in check. I don't know that this has been the sole factor, as you seem to imply, but certainly it has played a role. I still think regulation, or more to the point, just the government simply instituting what ought to be intuitive laws, has helped just as much.

Anyhow, I agree with you that labor unions can themselves become detrimental to our economy and even the worker, for that matter. They often overstep their bounds and usefulness, just as businesses do. Each entity, union and business, is led by humans, which basically entails inherent flaws.

 

[BigPapaVol]

No question that humans in charge means flaws, today and tomorrow. That said, I like human flaws without the authority of the gov't, and all it entails, to act upon said flaws. Trusting either is tough, but at least the private world has the market as a watchdog. The gov't has no watchdog if it wants no watchdog.

 

[volprof]

I am well aware of philosophy of Hobbs, Locke, and Rousseau on social contracts. The point of the social contract is to get man out of the state of nature. The state of nature means different things to those philosophers. However, none of them derived the their social contract on the basis of morality. Questions of sovereignty are not moral in nature. They are rooted in rational self-interest.



How is a business owner "enforcing" his morality upon another? Expressing his morality (either implicitly or explicitly)? Yes. Enforcing his morality upon another? No. He is not trying to control the actions of anybody else nor is he trying to change their own morality.



Is it not?



You are going to have to explain why you think Person A is automatically entitled to Person B's time, labor, and capital to produce a product or service.

Your argument works perfectly for the public sector. Until you can come to terms with the above stated question, your argument is flawed for private enterprises (regardless of what the products is).



Really? The denied have the freedom to walk down the street and engage in an economic transaction with whomever else wants to do business with them.

As it stands, a business person goes to jail if they attempt to hire or sell to whomever they want by whatever criteria they want.



This makes absolutely no sense. I don't even know where to begin.

PKT, I appreciate your relatively polite dialogue with me on this issue. It's clear that we have different notions of morality and what constitutes the social contract, and that's fine. I'll just close by saying that a society constructed along your lines frightens me, but I'm sure the one I construct does the same for you as well. And life goes on. Obla-de-obla-da.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The problem I see with your argument PKT, is that you are confusing something like Zaxby's closing at 10 PM with something like what went on in Nazi Germany (I know I keep harping on that) or even 18th - 20th century America (regarding Native Americans and Blacks and their access to services, goods, healthcare, etc.). I don't think UTRavens (and I know I don't) is particularly concerned about Zaxby's closing at 10 PM - that's not harming anyone's personal wellbeing. (But UTRavens can speak for himself on this matter; I don't want to project his own views for him.)

What you are not getting is that the principal and logic is the exact same. The only thing that changes is the emotional sympathy you are trying to illicit from your examples.

The purpose of bringing up Zaxby's 10pm operating rule is to show that nobody has a problem with it (unless you are craving their Kickin' Chicken Sandwich Meal with extra Zax sauce at 2am when you are drunk). That is an arbitrary rule a private business has that limits or denies potential consumer's access to their products.

It is only when race, gender, sexual orientation or some other abstract factor which both violates the moral compass of others and raises their emotions that there is outrage. The principal and logic behind it is still the same.

 

[PKT_VOL]

PKT, I appreciate your relatively polite dialogue with me on this issue. It's clear that we have different notions of morality and what constitutes the social contract, and that's fine. I'll just close by saying that a society constructed along your lines frightens me, but I'm sure the one I construct does the same for you as well. And life goes on. Obla-de-obla-da.

We share the same view (relatively) on personal morality. I just differ from you in believing that people have the right to be stupid. Additionally, from an economic standpoint, a lot of what I would argue for people having the right to do would be economically retarded and thus the invisible hand of the market would deal its own justice.

 

[volprof]

No question that humans in charge means flaws, today and tomorrow. That said, I like human flaws without the authority of the gov't, and all it entails, to act upon said flaws. Trusting either is tough, but at least the private world has the market as a watchdog. The gov't has no watchdog if it wants no watchdog.

I agree with pretty much all of this: the government, even our current government, can be oppressive and counter-productive. I will say, however, that the government does have a watchdog and that is the people, whether it be through the vote or the barrel of a gun. I know that doesn't necessarily apply to every country but it applies to our country. And I know these checks-and-balances carry limitations that aren't always fully effective.

Just as those watchdogs might be a bit shaky, though, I also think the market as watchdog is potentially shaky. Some argue that the market can dictate proper wages, for instance, rather than a federal minimum wage. However, the minimum wage today is not a living wage no matter what anyone says otherwise (if it were, people might have more incentive to get off welfare), and we know for a fact that American corporations were reluctant to even give this wage - they had to be coaxed by law into it. Wages are complicated obviously, but at some point we have to question how effective the market really is as a watchdog.

Anyhow, this opens up another conversation, and I'll leave it be. I'm signing off on this one.

 

[volprof]

We share the same view (relatively) on personal morality. I just differ from you in believing that people have the right to be stupid. Additionally, from an economic standpoint, a lot of what I would argue for people having the right to do would be economically retarded and thus the invisible hand of the market would deal its own justice.

Maybe I just don't read you in the way you intend, but that's honestly what you've gathered from all my posts on this subject? That's disheartening. I still just don't know how you come to such conclusions about what I've stated. Equating people trying to survive with people being stupid I just find hard to comprehend. A black person in the Jim Crow South was simply being stupid for wishing they weren't denied access to the often better quality goods, services, healthcare, etc. that whites were. That's hard to believe.

It's a good thing for you that this forum is an overwhelmingly conservative forum (which is one of the reasons I never feel much need to post any comments in favor of conservatism, because pretty much everyone and his brother rushes to do so). The blatant lack of outrage at your comments demonstrates this point, but such is the beast that is VolNation Politics forum - bastion of forward thinkingness. Anyhow, I'm moving on.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Maybe I just don't read you in the way you intend, but that's honestly what you've gathered from all my posts on this subject? That's disheartening. I still just don't know how you come to such conclusions about what I've stated. Equating people trying to survive with people being stupid I just find hard to comprehend. A black person in the Jim Crow South was simply being stupid for wishing they weren't denied access to the often better quality goods, services, healthcare, etc. that whites were. That's hard to believe.

It's a good thing for you that this forum is an overwhelmingly conservative forum (which is one of the reasons I never feel much need to post any comments in favor of conservatism, because pretty much everyone and his brother rushes to do so). The blatant lack of outrage at your comments demonstrates this point, but such is the beast that is VolNation Politics forum - bastion of forward thinkingness. Anyhow, I'm moving on.

My "being stupid" comment was in reference to business owners who are morally corrupt and discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. I believe that is them being dumb. However, I believe they have the right to be dumb as long as it does not harm another's life, liberty, or property. Economically, it is not a viable model. Hence the reason while business owners (both black and white) back in the day served both races. Money talks.

Jim Crow laws were mostly public policy. Not private policy. During this time, there were business owned by whites that served blacks and vice versa. There were business by whites that only served other whites and businesses by blacks that only served other blacks. Both were guilty of discrimination. Plessy v. Ferguson should have never happened, no doubt. That is indefensible; as is any discriminatory law or actions in the public arena.

 

[volprof]

My "being stupid" comment was in reference to business owners who are morally corrupt and discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. I believe that is them being dumb. However, I believe they have the right to be dumb as long as it does not harm another's life, liberty, or property. Economically, it is not a viable model. Hence the reason while business owners (both black and white) back in the day served both races. Money talks.

Jim Crow laws were mostly public policy. Not private policy. During this time, there were business owned by whites that served blacks and vice versa. There were business by whites that only served other whites and businesses by blacks that only served other blacks. Both were guilty of discrimination. Plessy v. Ferguson should have never happened, no doubt. That is indefensible; as is any discriminatory law or actions in the public arena.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that comment. I apologize for misunderstanding. That's why I often try to make sure to add clauses like "I could be misinterpreting you" since typed language can sometimes be ambiguous and difficult to decipher given that we're not necessarily allowed essays to clarify all our points. Although it always stings just a little to admit that I'm not the world's best reader, I'm glad I misinterpreted you here. It really frightened me that someone could think people trying to survive was the equal of people being stupid. Obviously you weren't making that point though.

I think your points are valid regarding the public arena, although I will say, in relation to Jim Crow, sometimes social standards can become more powerful than law. It was also technically illegal to lynch black people, but that doesn't mean the law didn't turn the other way. Sometimes the law or the public arena is actually weaker than the social standard, and the social standard can become even more overbearing than the law. I think we agree on these points but diverge with regard to the implications of a society that allows completely free business practices in relation to owners. And that's fine. Anyhow, I'm going to bed. Sorry again for the mistake.

 

[vollygirl]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWFjoC_luno&feature=share[/youtube]