Dear David,

This was in reply to your claim that: "When you deny a person employment on the basis of some criterion which has nothing to do with the person's ability to do the job that is illegal and should be."

In other words, you say that the only valid reason for a person to employ another is to have a job done.

But why would an employer want to have that job done to begin with?
Isn't it usually because she believes it would make her happier?
Perhaps because as a result she will have more money with which she could have things that she believes would make her happier?

So neither having a job done, nor earning money is the goal for which the employer spends her money - it is (usually) her happiness which she seeks.

Now if having someone around which she doesn't like (be it for their skin-colour or whatever) makes her unhappy, perhaps even upset and miserable, then why should she pay for it?

Phanto seems to answer this question by claiming that your money is not yours to enjoy, but instead, everyone else is entitled to it. Are you in agreement?

I don't think either Left or Right sides of politics advocate the criminalising of offensive speech. It's the authoritarian personalities that pepper both political sides and, unfortunately, have a more than average tendency to move up the ranks and into power who subscribe to the silencing and punishing of opinions they don't like.

When this 'taking offence' legislation was first put up, I was dumbfounded that it was even taken seriously, let alone passed. The sooner it's wiped off the legislative books, the better.

Dear Yuyutsu,

We live in a world of large corporations and other large organisations. Most corporate jobs go through the personnel department. A person employed by a personnel department must have as his or her only criterion when hiring an employee whether or not the person is capable of doing a job better than the other applicants. If the personnel person does not have that as his or her only criterion that person is not serving the best interests of the organisation. That person is also not serving the interests of the applicant and of society. An applicant is entitled to fair consideration, and society is entitled to stability. That stability is endangered if a particular group of people are discriminated against on the basis of skin colour or other criteria which have nothing to do with their job. Corporations may not systematically discriminate against any group of persons by any criteria other than competence. Corporations are part of our society and must abide by the standards of our society.

The same goes for applicants to medical school or other training for skilled occupations. Society is entitled to having the best qualified person for the job. If I am having an operation on my heart I am entitled to expect that the person who is performing that operation has been given the training and hired solely on their prospective or actual competence.

One may also not deny a person public accommodation because one does not like their skin colour.

In most cases one may not use any criteria other than competence in assigning a person to a function. This is part of the fair go that is talked about in Australia.

An individual may have prejudices, but for the good of others and of society that individual is limited in acting on those prejudices. Discrimination results in a meaner, poorer and more unfair society. The freedom to discriminate is the freedom to oppress.

@Killarney, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 7:37:44 PM

Agreed.

Talking about Left,

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
Noam Chomsky

Dear David,

I can understand the case for corporations: since they asked for the benefits connected with being incorporated, following certain guidelines is a reasonable price that society may exact in return.

Same of course for medical schools and public accommodation, which are highly subsidised by the state.

Where I disagree is when it comes to private individuals. Their (after-tax) money is theirs to enjoy, not to suffer, especially not for the interests of an involuntary society whom they never consented to be part of.

You just mentioned "the freedom to oppress", but isn't denying someone the freedom to be around people they like and not around people they dislike, a clear case of oppression?

I certainly oppose oppression, I just don't believe that denying someone which I don't like a share of my hard-earned money is a form of oppression. Is there any way you can substantiate your claim that "the freedom to discriminate is the freedom to oppress"?

Dear OnTheBeach,

Surely you have a right to say things which others despise, but why must you do it in front of them when you can reasonably expect them to be hurt?

Dear Yuyutsu,

You have complete freedom in your private life to decide who you will associate with. When you pay taxes you cannot decide that your money will be denied to those you don’t like. The government decides where the money will go supposedly for the public good whether you like those who receive it or not.

The freedom to discriminate is the freedom to oppress. If you own a business and you deny a person employment because you don’t like that person because of that person’s skin colour or any other reason that has nothing to do with the person’s ability to do the job you are being unfair. The person is oppressed because they are being denied a fair chance to make a living.

Your freedom is limited when it interferes with the freedom of others. Your fist is free to move where it will as long as it doesn’t hurt others. When we travel on a highway we are not free to move into a lane which contains traffic flowing in the other direction.

As a practical matter the government cannot ensure that hiring and firing will always be decided strictly on competence. However, where it can be done it should be done.

The milieu in which we operate determines our freedom of association. In private life we have freedom to decide who we will associate with. In public life we don’t. Running a business is a part of public life.

You wrote to OnTheBeach,

“Surely you have a right to say things which others despise, but why must you do it in front of them when you can reasonably expect them to be hurt?”

To deny a person employment when they are capable of doing a job is a greater hurt than saying nasty things.