DEBATE 500: Business Discrimination

Re: The Role of GovernmentMy opponent begins "The government's duty is to ensure that justice is made and there is equality under law." However the justice of equality of treatment depends first of all on the justice of the treatment itself. "Suppose, for example, that Jones [and/or the State], with his retinue, proposes to enslave a group of people. Are we to maintain that 'justice' requires that each be enslaved equally? And suppose that someone has the good fortune to escape. Are we to condemn him for evading the equality of justice meted out to his fellows?" [1]. Con then goes on to propose the dramatic scenario of where one might die because of discrimination. First, in theory, we could allow every business *except* hospitals to discriminate, thereby nixing most of this contention. And second, we already allow this to happen every single day as we discriminate based on ability to pay. People who cannot afford the best care die by the second. We discriminate by class constantly. Those who can afford it get the best legal defense, healthcare, education, security and opportunities. It sounds like Con is suggesting we become communist by saying we no longer be allowed to discriminate. Re: Anti-Discrimination LawsCon goes on to detail the negative impact of segregation, for which I would agree, although there is also evidence of the positive impacts of homogeneity [2] but I digress. He further describes instances where people were treated unfairly or in a hurtful, detrimental way due to shallow standards. Yet this goes back to R2 arguments on intolerance. "You and I disapprove of bigotry... Tolerance means accepting the fact that other people's values might be very different than your own." Audience, please go back and re-read the section under 'The Role of Government' in R2. Remember the comparison to freedom of speech. We allow even speech that we find vehemently immoral. Similarly we must legally permit behavior that we do not agree with so long as it is not aggressive. We can fight it. We can protest it. We can petition against it, picket it, raise media awareness, write about it, and boycott. But we should legally permit intolerance. We should not use the state to forcibly impose our subjective moral values outside of protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- freedom from aggression in bodily autonomy and physical property. Discrimination does not violate that standard because it is not overtly aggressive. Discrimination protects our rights. Re: Why Discriminate I pointed out the USFG imposes sanctions (discriminates) against targeted groups, so why couldn't citizens? Con rightly notes the government has rights that ordinary citizens do not. Yet that obvious contention does not address the premise: justifiable discrimination, and using discrimination as a rational and practical means to a reaosnable end. I went on to mention that in some cases, trading with another individual or firm qualifies as condoning or not standing up for one's most important values. This raises significant concerns for a multiple civil liberties violations - including freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience to name a few. Con's response? "When we look at contractual laws, we can see that advertising is an invitation for bargaining, meaning now that the business has advertised itself, others have the permission to enter the store or firm and commence business." He simply recites with the current law and standard is without justifying that standard. Repeating the status quo does not win him this debate -- I am arguing against the status quo. I'm arguing that it's violating people's civil liberties as detailed above. Con repeats the law, and does not address why the current law is righteous. And now I won't have the opportunity to respond... Re: Rational DiscriminationCon admits that it is completely rational to discriminate, as it might pertain to people's safety. I have won this point. He then repeats the point about advertising which is completely irrelevant. He says door-to-door selling qualifies as advertisement and thus is subject to laws that forbid discrimination. Yet what if we use the example of a taxi cab service. Many cabs avoid "black neighborhoods" and discriminate on passengers based on statistical inference. I repeat: in choosing to not trade with Person A within the inner city, one will lose out on the potential profit of that deal -- but they will also not be exposed to any potential risk of that deal. If we do not consider probability and statistics with our rational self-interest in making deals, we are not weighing the cost-benefit analysis correctly.I gave the example of consumers wanting an all-male sports facility or an all-woman spa. It would behoove business owners to make a profit by satiating that demand. Con replied, "there may be demand for one, but there is demand for an open club to all. Even if it is private, the club should be open to all as there is demand for this as well." Well, if there is a demand for an all-inclusive club, that should certainly be allowed... what does that have to do with inhibiting the demand for exclusive clubs? And furthermore, is Con suggesting that all exclusivity be disallowed? For exclusive membership of any kind would necessitate some type of discrimination. Let's not go down a slippery slope toward outlawing discrimination. Re: Federal FundingCon asks, "Since farmers may not get subsidies does this mean they are allowed to own slaves even if it is voluntary?" The answer is absolutely not, because this would violate the freedoms I've specifically outlined including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Meanwhile, Con's very own proposed moral standard of Utalitarianism would permit slavery! For Con believes in majority rules or operating by the greatest good for the greater number, regardless of what disgusting behavior or terrible actions that may entail.Con asks, "Is a company allowed to dump waste into a lake even though they don't get federal funding? The answer is no." Con is right - the answer IS no because this, too, violates the property rights I've already outlined previously. And moreover, to reiterate my points under this header, #1 only private businesses should be allowed to discriminate -- ones that do not receive tax payer funding of any kind, and #2 businesses that expect to receive government funding of any kind can be required to NOT discriminate. This would discourage discrimination, but still allow for it. Re: CapitalismCon admits, "Capitalism discourages discrimination, but that does not mean it does not happen." Quite obviously, utopia can never exist where every single moral standard or even law is abided by all. Sorry Con. Yet the fact remains that people, on balance, ignore frivolous differences for the sake of trade. While some discrimination is rational, most of it is not (on a risk/financial basis) thus most people do not perpetuate this standard. Con suggests that acknowledging this reality is contradictory but that's absurd. Discrimination might be cost-effective or riskier in some situations vs. others. It's circumstantial. == That brings me to wrapping up on Business and Trade. In R2, Con argued that the black community suffered harm as the result of discrimination. Con also mentions the ghetto tax: charging black people higher rates for loans. All of this goes back to my point on rational discrimination. After the Civil War ended, black people had little to no education or opportunities. Many of them were forced to work for pennies if they could find work at all. Thus, why wouldn't one assume that black people (recently freed slaves) and the immediate generations weren't most likely extremely poor? They were, on balance, very risky investments which would be an assumption rooted in logic. Today, that assumption would not be as warranted. My opponent writes, "In business, the purpose is to see your product/service and maximize the amount of profit you can make, but when business owners discriminate, this tends to work against their own desires." He repeats that discrimination is not practical and wise. Yet this only supports MY position in the debate. Indeed, since a business owner's concern is maximizing their productivity and profit, they will likely not discriminate as I have outlined in the previous round. The free-market has voluntarily discouraged discrimination, whereas forced integration is typically met with resistance, hostility and resentment.In fact every single argument that Con brings up about discrimination works in my favor. He notes that LGBT people are worth a huge portion of the market, so discrimination against them would cause a tremendous loss. This just proves why discrimination is inconvenient and ineffective to a businesses' bottom line. Furthermore, capitalism allows for opportunities for other businesses to pop up and capitalize on market demand. For example, while LGBT people might be discriminated against (or feel unwelcome) in certain areas, entire industries that are specifically devoted to LGBT individuals have emerged. There are gay bars, clubs, hotels, cruise lines, real estate pros, legal teams, and tons of other services that specifically market toward LGBT people in particular [4, 5, 6, 7]. Thus capitalism not only discourages discrimination, but it provides opportunity by opening up market share and promoting competition. It also allows people to boycott effectively. For instance, Con noted the NBA and other organizations have pulled their business from states that allowed for discrimination. If every state could legally discriminate, and thereby we only went after (or avoided) the single individuals or companies that we did not like, we can target our boycotts effectively and hit the real culprits where it hurts while being fair and generous to the others.SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...