Wed 10 Jun 2009
Let’s make the best of the situation before I finally go insane
Posted by Jeff under Jeff's Thoughts[4] Comments
Midterms start Monday so I feel the need to get out some thoughts and clear my mind. These days I generally just share links directly with friends I think will be interested, usually via Facebook (though Levi and Rajan tend to email me links). If I think a lot of other people will be interested, then I will post it to Reddit. While I visit Reddit daily, I find that I rarely comment anymore. The community has gotten so large that I’m overwhelmed by the comments. It seems as well that since they introduced their sub-reddits anything I do post gets buried. This means I rarely do get to share the posts/topics.
Some topics: 1) Follow up from the Indian Act in my last post – the Government is not challenging the court ruling, but the plantiff is. Looks like this issue is going to continue to drag on. 2) Ontario opened their adoption records – I find the event interesting but didn’t know of it until a friend mentioned it. 3) Here’s a link to Balsille’s website supporting the move of the Phoenix Coyotes to Hamilton. I hope this works out in Balsille’s favour – the matter is being worked out in court.
I was quite pleased to see the Governor General participate in a Inuit ceremony that involved gutting and eating part of a raw seal heart. It both aids to promote a part of Canadian culture and also acknowledges the importance the seal hunt plays in Eastern Canada. Of course many ‘animal rights’ groups were upset – maybe instead they can focus on their own scandals instead.
GM’s Oshawa truck plant, where I worked on my last co-op, has closed. GM went into bankrupcy protection and an arrangement has been made for the CAW, and US and Canadian governments to hold part ownership. I was opposed to the bailouts and supported bankruptcy proceedings last year. With the expectation that the new money the government provides not to be paid back, along with the previous bailout money, one needs to ask if the government cost per auto and auto related job saved is worth that amount. I heard an estimate that it is $1.5 million per job. I don’t think it’s worth it.
There is also new estimates that the Federal deficit will rise to $50 billion this year. I expected, as well as accepted, a deficit this year but I was willing to accept maybe half that amount. The deficit wouldn’t have been so high if the government didn’t stupidly reduce GST. On a side note, I don’t understand the provincial Progressive Conservative’s stance against PST/GST harmonization. Everything I’ve read on the topic supports it economically.
Somehow I was thinking last week and an old court case came to mind about a printer opposing printing material for a LGBT group. I believe I had a discussion a few years ago with Mike about it where I supported the LGBT group. I just wanted to tell people (mainly Mike) that I have changed my position. I support the printer’s choice to discriminate. If people want to act stupidly and lose business, that’s their choice. I also support the public’s ability to call them out on their discrimination even if the negative press harms them. It’s a risk they have if they make that choice.
Though not really related, that case came to mind when I read about a case of child custody by white-supremacists. Well it may sound impersonal, I consider young children to essentially be chattel of their parents – they are responsible for them and also hold rights to teach them their beliefs. While I find the material these children are subjected to to be appalling, there are many things taught to children that I disagree with (e.g. religion) yet don’t think should be banned. Considering the situation, I think I would draw the line at teaching them material that makes them want to harm other people, in this case teaching them that they should harm black people.
Now there is a continuing debate about what exactly ‘hate speech’ is. I tend to side more on the side of free speech until the extreme of speech that specifically calls for harm to a group of people. If people want to be racist and teach their children to be racist, I believe that is their right, but what these parents have done is incited belief to harm racial minorities, and that is over the line. By this reasoning, the parents are guilty of hate speech, and given the goal to both punish people for their crime and prevent it in the future, removing the children from custody does seem like a fitting solution. One of my core beliefs is in tolerance (thought not acceptance), and instilling a belief to harm black people in children, of course, is not at all tolerant.
Currently Listening to: Loud sound from X-Men 3 playing upstairs
Random Wikipedia Article: Blood libel
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
“If people want to act stupidly and lose business, that’s their choice. I also support the public’s ability to call them out on their discrimination even if the negative press harms them.”
There’s always a line somewhere. The public have a right to be protected, for example, from someone practicing proactive hate. But a private enterprise? They should be allowed to refuse service for any reason, and risk the consequences.
Can a restaurant refuse to serve based on skin colour? In practice, it doesn’t really matter whether such a thing is legally permissable—the ensuing boycott would soon put them out of business.
Anyhow, thanks for the updates. I hope your midterms go well. We should have a chat sometime.
I’m not convinced that it’s ok for businesses to do whatever they want, and not worry about ethics. It sounds a lot like capitalism, and we’ve seen how well that’s working out now. (No, I’m not at all bitter about my lack of job).
The problem with theories like that is that they rely on the fundamental goodness of people, and assume that people will do the right thing. Maybe back when Smith originally wrote out his theory that was true (although what I know of history doesn’t support that), but especially when we’re in cities, and dealing with so many people, most folks will not worry about the ethics of their choices.
I know that I frequently justify choices that I know are unethical by “I can only do so much”. Would I use that printer? Probably no more often than I do other things I oughtn’t. FYI, I ate meat meals three times last week, along side my out-of-season cucumbers. I don’t think that they’re going out of business any time soon.
I’m not proposing that businesses be allowed to do whatever they want (that’s very broad), I’m proposing they can discriminate against customers. I’m opposed to actions by companies that create negative externalities (say pollution – I’m in favour of a carbon tax). Markets are good things in general, but I don’t believe that there should be unfettered free markets for everything.
Ethics are subjective though, so it’s hard to debate an issue without laying out the framework to discuss it in. To me, there is no right to do business with someone else, so I believe it is the business’s right to discriminate. I’ll add the note though that government services shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate.
I think I follow, but I’m not sure. Basically, the argument is that, as long as *someone* is offering access to the services it’s ok?
So in a small town, when there was only one print shop, that would be worse than in a big city? And government services, where there’s only one source, need to allow everyone.