The Narrow Path Ministries

@Dwight - There are of course numerous types of opportunities (many, many more than employment and citizenship). How do you approach deciding which opportunities a person must be compelled to offer to others on an basis of equality (e.g. employment) vs. those that are exempt from this requirement (e.g. citizenship)?

Pete wrote:What is your opinion about whether employees ought to be allowed to discriminate against potential employers?

I agree with you. They should have the freedom to discriminate, since it is their business, and should be free to operate it as they wish. However, that was not the issue in question. You stated that you believed that there should not be equal opportunity. I stated that there SHOULD be equal opportunity—that is, employers OUGHT NOT to discriminate. Whether they should be allowed by law or the Government to discriminate is a different matter. The law or the government should not dictate the choices a person makes in operating his own business.

Perhaps I am closer in thinking to the Libertarian Party than I sometimes seem.

I don't mean any disrespect but you seem to have a one-track mind. Everything seems to fall back to your libertarian beliefs on authority or non-authority, no matter what the topic is.

P.S. Sorry, that was addressed to Pete.

Paidion wrote:They should have the freedom to discriminate, since it is their business, and should be free to operate it as they wish. However, that was not the issue in question. Whether they should be allowed by law or the Government to discriminate is a different matter.

I have been thinking, perhaps incorrectly, that the issue at hand is about what ought to be allowed or not allowed by law. I think I've taken care to explain this in one way or another in all but one post. Maybe this was not sufficiently clear.

Paidion wrote:You stated that you believed that there should not be equal opportunity. I stated that there SHOULD be equal opportunity—that is, employers OUGHT NOT to discriminate...

I am willing to say that I do not think an employer is under a moral obligation to not discriminate against potential employees for any reason whatsoever (e.g. race, sex, religion), but the statement that I am saying their should be unequal opportunity is too strong and does not represent my position. Let me explain: I am not affirming either that employers should prefer blacks to whites, or whites to blacks. I am not affirming that employers should prefer men to women, or women to men. Likewise for the various religions. Since I am not asserting any criteria by which I think employers should discriminate, I think it is not fair to say am saying their should be unequal opportunities. My view is simply this - whether other people discriminate or not is none of my business. If an employer wishes to run his business to discriminate one way or another, then I am fine that. It is his choice to do as he wishes because it is his business and his property.

Paidion wrote:The law or the government should not dictate the choices a person makes in operating his own business. Perhaps I am closer in thinking to the Libertarian Party than I sometimes seem. :o

If that applies to your view of both employers and employees legal right to discriminate against one another for any reason, then you are closer than I thought.

dwight92070 wrote:I don't mean any disrespect but you seem to have a one-track mind. Everything seems to fall back to your libertarian beliefs on authority or non-authority, no matter what the topic is.

Where have I incorrectly or inappropriately related these things with the topic at hand?

Interesting comparison of Capitalism vs Socialism: East Germany and West Germany

"The Experiment: Capitalism versus Socialism" https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/23/ ... socialism/

"Socialism" is a broader term than "Communism." I think it wise not to paint all socialists with a Communist brush.

Canada (the country in which I live) is a socialist country; it is not a Communist country.

@Paidon Not only that, today's socialism is not the same as 1950's socialism. Any more than today's "capitalism" is the same as the 1950's. This strange breed of American nationalism fantasizes about an Eisenhower-ian golden era of capitalism and democracy that knew nothing of multi-national corporations, a firehose of information and communication via the Internet, government surveillance at an unimaginable level, and unthinkable medical advancements that coincide with unprecedented health care costs. People keep trotting out hyper-versions of arguments that made sense in the 1970's but don't take seriously the unfathomable social and economic upheaval that has taken place in the last 40 years. We've been frog-in-a-kettled. Croaking the same old song is just leading to louder toad soup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi, all.

Paidion wrote:Canada (the country in which I live) is a socialist country; it is not a Communist country.

I think not, Paidion. I'm no economist, but dictionary.com defines "socialism" as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

There are only a handful of countries in the world that are really socialist, I think. The existence of a welfare system does not amount to socialism, nor does the community/public (i.e., gov't) ownership and control of a fraction of an economy amount to socialism (nor does the existence of a political party with the word "socialist" in it's name.)

Canada has a free-market, private economy, on the whole, with lower top private and business tax rates and less government spending as a % of GDP than the USA (according to heritage.org Canada, USA, and Wikipedia). Most of the land is government-owned evidently, but that's not too surprising since most of the land is uninhabitable, I think.

(I think I've seen efforts to redefine socialism, so you might have your own definition of what it is, in which case, I'm sure you're correct that Canada is "socialist", by your definition.)