Desipis,

"If the government/society decided appointment of board members requires regulation (on gender or otherwise), then there is nothing inherently wrong or anti-capitalist/anti-business about it."

There is certainly something wrong with forcing boards to do something like this. In theory, boards should be comprised of the best people for the job, based on experience, education, management style complimenting the business etc. While I'm not suggesting that that's what happens now, that's the way it should be working.

Positive discriminiation, no matter how well intentioned, is just making up numbers and is not ensuring that the best person is in the job. That is the quintessential failure of a policy like the one mentioned above.

des,

there is no such thing as 'society.'

There is only you and me and everyone with an opinion in between.

What l do, what you do, is at no one's leisure.

Permission not required.

But thanxs for asking.

BN,

I meant to make it clearer that I am against 'positive' discrimination or 'affirmative action'; it should be the best person for the job regardless of the resulting gender/race/other imbalance. I was opposing trade215 view that businesses should be totally disjunct from the ethical standards of the community in which they exist.

trade215,

Society exists in the same way businesses exist, as an abstract notion defined by the behavioral patterns of the people involved. It is the collection of people's opinions and behaviors that make up society.

"What l do, what you do, is at no one's leisure."

The notion that you are free to do as you will regardless of the impact on others is quite unethical and, in light of others' ability to react and have impact on you, quite short sighted.

des,

you insist on misrepresenting my position, extrapolating non-existent premises of your own making. Though tedious, l will engratiate your ethical and long sighted intellectual dishonesties.

Its quite OK to make your own point and own it, without attributing self serving extrapolations to those postions you seek to rebut.

You are quite adept at using the strawman, hence argueing with yourself. Ah well this is an internet forum.

A simple premises such as 'you cannot force me to do your bidding' gets spun into all sorts of absurd notions such as "The notion that you are free to do as you will regardless of the impact on others is quite unethical and, in light of others' ability to react and have impact on you, quite short sighted." That supports my position, namely that its all self interest and force (subtle and overt). A notion which reflects your own thinking, sugar-coated, projected.

1. everyone is free to do as they please (self interest), including
2. not doing to others as they would not have them do unto thyself (self interest)
3. one need not force others when you can hide behind 'society', and
4. get government to do your dirty work (forcing boards to reflect your ideological agenda)
5. 'ethics' are self serving behavioural constructs. Ethical to whom they serve and unethical to whom they do not.
6. all the while denying the harsh aspects of human nature and reality, whilst
7. pretending to be ethical, long sighted, 'altruistic', holier-than-thou pretentions of 'moral highgrounds' that the 'socially minded' are so fond of invoking.

Having once been a rabidly devout true believing lefty myself, l prefer to eschew the hypocracy of socialism, leaning instead slightly toward the more obvious hypocrazy of psuedo capitalism.

Its a welfare statist world we live in. Average guy works 50-75% of his life to pay various taxes (sugar coated servitude), which gets doled out for good things like health and education and not so good things like career bludging, business subsidies, arts grants and to ideolgically self serving groups.

l refuse to pretend.

I am with you trade 251, I too was a lefty civil rights advocate of the sixties, that is untill I saw the light when I left the Army. I now work for the Federal Government and have been unfortunatly exposed to its gender politics in the workforce.

Like most of the men in my age and department,we have watched women from middle/upper class white society being promoted purley on the basis of their gender and not for talent and watched the job fail because of it.

We even have the stupid situation of a thing that was once a man changing into a women, being promoted as a female, into a senior role, because its now percieved as a women.

Doctor King in his famous speech wanted to be treated by the content of his character and not the colour of his skin ( I might add his gender) so this policy makes no sense to me, when taqlented men are being passed for less talented women.

I don't expect to be promoted because I am Indigenous or a commissioned combat veteran or because I am male or any other reason except merit. So why should private schooled rich white women be promoted above me purley because they are women or have had a gender change, it makes no sense and is pure socialist rubbish.

We have women in our workforce spending more time breeding and training than we have actually doing any work, which is undetaken by men or worst by other single/married women without children.

SO I don't know how a private sector employer is going to survive if ACTU wins the next election because this gender rubbish is on there agenda.

trade,

the comment I quoted indicated your view is one cannot influence another, and by extension it is pointless to consider how one's actions will influence (therefore impact) others. How is my extrapolation erroneous?

While people will act in their (perceived) self interest, it's possible to change their situation and effect what actions are in their self interest. One key role of government should be to ensure individuals' self interest align with the common interest. You call this "get[ting] the government to do [my] dirty work]", however isn't the role of a democratically elected government to enact policies supported by (in the self interest of) the majority of voters?

Your points 5 & 7 indicate that you believe it's not possible to have an 'intellectual' debate with neutral opinions about the best way run society, or that it is not in the self interest of those involved to do so. This would seem to be ignorant of the entire basis of civilized society.

The 50-75% effect tax rate you point out neglects the issue that it is these funds that go to providing the infrastructure and civil systems that underline our economy, and that without would mean earning 90-95% less in gross income. It is in the self-interest of the majority that some form of tax remains in place, and it is the government's responsibility to ensure it is in individual's self interest to pay (e.g. fines, jail time). I'm not claiming that all tax dollars a spent wisely, just that poor spending policies are a result of the failures in our political, not economic system.

I don't consider myself a "rabidly devout true believing lefty myself,". However what "free-market fundamentalists" (anti-socialists) like yourself fail to acknowledge widely accepted economic principles that identify situations in which the free-market will fail in its goals. A 'Free' market is a proven mechanism to encourage efficiency, innovation and a 'fair' price, however there are weaknesses that cause market failure, meaning a 'socialism' approach is better in some circumstances.

"l refuse to pretend."

What exactly are you not pretending (that by implication I am)?