It should be noted, a historical example, or lack thereof, is not a sound argument. The Ethical argument is moral action. We can say Slavery is immoral because it violates both private property (the body) and the non-aggression axiom. We do not need any historical or contemporary example to make that argument.
You said that black women have special rights. Please explain what rights you're speaking of, and what makes them special. Also, I'd like you to explain how you don't share those same rights yourself.
That isn't what I said. I'll quote myself and explain the position more clearly.
"Good" Business owner is always worried about the next person they employ will be a "Bad" employee. They want someone they can trust, who is going to work hard to make them a profit and isn't going to sue them. They want to be able to fire this person if they find out they do not make them a profit, may be stealing and do not work hard. So, imagine you're a business owner and you hire a gay black woman. You're taking a great legal risk because the government has given "special rights" to blacks, to gays and to women. This means even a "Good" business owner will think twice about taking the chance hiring a gay black woman. Which is a shame as this woman may be the best, hardest working woman and a dream come true. See, it'd be much easier to hire a straight, white, man. That way if he's a waste of space, he can be easily fired and replace with someone else.
Anti-discrimination laws make it riskier for a business owner not of the gender, race or sexual orientation of the person they hire (which could be anyone including a white male) because if they fire that person, there is a risk to the owner that they may be sued for anti-discrimination violations if there is a difference between the owner and the fired employee. Small and medium business owners are risk adverse because a single employee may take down the entire business in a lawsuit. There is no evidence that anti-discrimination laws have any positive effect on small and medium sized businesses. Some evidence there is a negative effect. There is a correlation with the introduction of anti-discrimination laws and increase female participation in the workplace. However, as a correlation, it's not know if these laws are prompting businesses to hire or not to hire females or if society in general is less bigoted towards females working.
My argument is that it is not required to resort to an immoral action - specifically the use of the State's special ability to initiate force against innocent people to restructure the economy to hire people of different genders, so-called 'races' and sexual orientation.
You said that there is "good evidence" that small business owners do not hire minorities because of these "special rights" laws; please provide it.
Employment protection legislation: a critical review of the literature
This empirical evidence gives support to the theories according to which EPL
leads to a segmentation in the labour market between the so-called insiders, the workers with a protected job, and the outsiders, who are people that are either unemployed or employed with fixed-term, part-time or temporary contracts, or even in the black economy, and face big difficulties to find a job covered by EPL because of the firms’ reduced propensity to hire. This latter group is mainly constituted by youths, women, racial minorities and unskilled workers.
This paper h
Consequences of Employment Protection? The Case of the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the exact same thing happened to disabled people AFTER the laws were introduced.
Although the ADA was meant to increase employment of the disabled, it also increases costs for employers. The net theoretical impact turns on which provisions of the ADA are most important and how responsive firm entry and exit is to profits. Empirical results using the CPS suggest that the ADA had a negative effect on the employment of disabled men of all working ages and disabled women under age 40. The effects appear to be larger in medium size firms, possibly because small firms were exempt from the ADA. The effects are also larger in states where there have been more ADA-related discrimination charges.
You said that a business will go belly-up if they practice hiring discrimination; please give an example of this.
From Forbes:
Barilla Earns Gay Boycott, Learns Taking Sides Is Bad For Business
Barilla Pasta stepped on a landmine this week telling Italian media the company would never feature or market directly to gay couples. If they had a problem with that, said its chairman, they could eat another brand of pasta. Competitor Bertolli Germany lost little time presenting itself as that very option, as told by AdWeek. Posting a photo and caption that translates to “pasta and love for all” on its Facebook page and resurrecting a commercial from 2011 featuring gay couples.
See? Is IS POSSIBLE to use the free-market to address these concerns. And while it may take years of diligence, rather than pay a fine, give a fake apology and pretend to be accepting - the pay off is genuine change to society as well as the fact morality (enacting change through peaceful voluntarily withholding social free-market interaction) triumphed over ignorance (bigotry) without needed to resort to the immoral use of force. Which, literally actually run counter to the underlying ideal of 'democracy'. IF people truly care, they'll do something about it - AKA not do business with the bigot. If they don't, then a law would run counter to societies wishes. Which is just something to think about.
Of course the CEO of Barella apologized profusely. Was that enough retribution? I suppose the free-market will punish accordingly.
You said that the State cannot legislate morality; I asked you what you call laws against rape, murder, and theft if not morality legislated. I also asked on what basis the slaves were freed if not a moral one. Please respond.
I understand your question. The State is there to uphold the Law and protect private property. Rape, murder and theft are all issues of private property. The body is owned by the individual and this is implicitly understood as the body's actions are the individuals actions. Thus, rape and murder are illegal. Theft is also a loss of property.
The State is not there to legislate morality. When Law is upheld and Private Property protected, society that uses sound money becomes prosperous through free-voluntarism interactions and with prosperity comes leisure-time (time + civil freedom) and as Aristotle made clear, humans are inclined to learn and acquire knowledge - thus ignorance (bigotry) is overcome.
As soon as you resort to State-led violence, all of this falls to the way side and we end up with the crappy society we have today instead of the prosperous one where we'd be arguing instead about which city to visit on Mars and which cryopod is the most comfortable. Too bad we didn't live in a true free-market, we'd be much wealthier, more knowledgeable and less bigoted. Instead we get to live and die in a Banking Plutocracy. Lucky us.
Now, I await your response to people's A, B and C.
