<p>
Of course an individual does not in himself generally form monopolies. But when many individuals act in racist collusion against elements of society that in part gives them support (as was once the case in America), they certainly do and it is unfair to the rest of society.</p>
<p>
Yet it is legal. It is illegal for sole proprietorships to be __ist. A logical inconsistency.</p>
<p>
Well, the Constitution recognizes individual freedom of speech and association. But business entities are a different matter. The law seems to be trying to promote individual liberty while protecting against unfair exploitation of the minority by monopolistic collusion by the majority.</p>
<p>
I guess I don’t understand how one can “exploit” something by not doing anything. Exploiting something usually requires an action of something. Not non-action.</p>
<p>The problem is that businesses are prevented from <em>not</em> doing something.</p>
<p>
This is not true. There are plenty American businesses that have not even one Asian or black person, and they are fine under the law. But should they seek public commerce, including trading labor for other resources, then they are not allowed to form such legal and deliberate monopolies that society, including minorities therein, is threatened. The law seems to take great care not to allow the majority to tyrannize the minority. And this seems right for any civilized society to do.</p>
<p>Also, one may exploit an unfair system that someone else has erected in one’s favor simply by living and allowing the unfairness to persist. It is really what America has always been about, contrary to its philosophy.</p>
<p>
It seems pretty clear the law doesn’t allow __ist behavior by the employer. You have somehow worked “monopoly” in here - company size and labor market power are not specified in the law. Citizens, organized by race, can boycott businesses. I have no problem with this. I simply do not understand an argument which says the opposite is not allowed. </p>
<p>
America has always been about unfairness? I suppose one would have to define that further. It certainly wasn’t unfair to all willing immigrants. Anything that is “unwilling” is generally always unfair (untrue with our legal system, unwilling imprisonment of criminals is good).</p>
<p>
There is no “somehow” about it, and company size is irrelevant on this specifc issue. It is monopolistic philosophy that is the problem and it is un-American. If a group does what whites have done for nearly the entirety of American history, it creates a deliberate racial monopoly on labor, where only members of the racial group get to sell it and/or buy it. This has and would take place to one degree or other depending upon the labor and industry. It is not as if America does not have a history of this. And it is unfair, especially since America consists of people who are in many different racial groups. The group would form industry that would take public resources to develop commerce-- resources to which all groups contribute, and then exclude all but certain groups. This is a far different thing from individuals deciding to associate so that they may protest this sort of practice.</p>
<p>Now, I have said this repeatedly, so that I am now weary of the repetition. If you have no better and newer questions, I must be off to bed.</p>
<p>
Functionally, an owner of a business & a job applicant are two sides to the same coin. One is selling labor. One is buying labor. There should not be a law telling either side who they can or can not do business with. Most (all?) economic transactions can be modeled just this way, with a buyer & seller. I see no reason why the buyer or seller should have different rights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, they only have the desire to eliminate what they perceive as distasteful, whether it be thought or actions. This is also true of conservatives. There are many issues that conservatives think are distasteful that the liberals seem to have no problem with. We can always start with PETA and GreenPeace. A dog is a boy is a philosophy I can’t seem to grasp.</p>
<p>There is the whole abortion issue which to some conservatives is about as much of an abomination as you can get. It’s all a matter of perspective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If buying and selling were all that existed between the two, and were they all that mattered, then you would have a point. But there are other issues involved, namely the public/political nature of these transactions. If the buyer and seller wished to partition themselves off to form their own private sphere, they may do this as individuals. But if they wish to transact with all of society, using its resources, then it makes sense that they not be able to reject any of the society, since that society contributes its sweat to make public transactions possible. If a segment of society is to be rejected, then that segment ought to receive a break in taxes to account for it. Or, those who aim to reject others must account for it by paying for the public support of those they reject.</p>
<p>The law is admittedly imprecise and imperfect, since people are imprecise and imperfect. Were perfection the aim, the law would reflect reality, in this case human biological reality. That reality is so absent of partitions between the races that such things as “races” obviously do not exist. This means that no law could possibly permit someone to reject another based on race, since a truly civilized law would not falsely declare the existence of what does not exist. But, of course, the law is not so rigid. It has provisions that allow discrimination by individuals of individuals even because of race, this, not because the provisions represent an improvement of law, but because individuals are often too undeveloped to comprehend the reality that governs them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If people were not in society mutually contributing to public resources, then this would be true. But that is not the case here in America. We all contribute. To get the sort of world you wish, you need to move to a place where only the sorts of people you prefer contribute to the public resources. Barring that, no honor permits your using those resources while excluding certain others from trade simply because of how they physically appear. It is obvious that we may discriminate based on behavior, since behavior by definition does something. But to class an entire group as worthy of exclusion simply because of their color, while using their resources, is dishonorable.</p>
<p>I would like to think that the vast majority, regardless of where they fall on the scale, do their discrimination based on, as you say, behavior. I like the way you said that. I understand there are those who will do otherwise but we can hope.</p>