{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Liberty Hub
7/6/2016 5:49:30 AM
11
As long as the process doesn't discriminate I don't see why not
English
-
Well, the whole purpose is discrimination. Note that "discrimination" occurs when the employer selects one applicant over another for any reason. The employer has discriminated against whomever wasn't picked. It's a morally-neutral action. If I'm down to two applicants and I hand both of them an aptitude test with the agreement that whichever applicant scores higher will be hired, then I'm "discriminating" against the applicant with lower aptitude. That's well within my rights. Now, let's assume that the discrimination becomes racial. While I personally find that irrational, it isn't up to me to use the state to force the employer to hire against his will. He owns his business and he owns the means of production.
-
What I was getting at was racial discrimination. If an interview comes down to a white and a black candidate the choice should depend upon who's best suited for the job.
-
[quote] If an interview comes down to a white and a black candidate the choice should depend upon who's best suited for the job.[/quote] I agree. If I was a business owner, that would be my line of reasoning. However, other business owners ought to be free to select the candidate that they please - for whatever reason.
-
I suppose. I just see it causing problems in the long run.
-
Profit motive is a powerful force. If a company turns down a more qualified applicant because of racial bias, the competition is going to take advantage of that. It's in a business's best interest to hire the most efficient workers possible - bias has little room in a profit margin.
-
And what about government services such as fire and police? There's not exactly any profit to be had
-
Exactly. I'm referring specifically and exclusively to the private sector. The state must operate on a purely meritocratic basis. It does not have the liberty of choosing, since it does not own the means of production.
-
I see. I'd love to agree but I'm seeing a second civil rights movement if this were the case. The only way I see this working is if through the process the races were in balanced numbers.
-
[quote]The only way I see this working is if through the process the races were in balanced numbers.[/quote] Balanced numbers? By this, do you mean that 13% of employees in a certain industry should be black because 13% of the population is black?
-
Sort of. Kind of like a quota except the applicant still has to pass the employment process instead of getting a free pass. I really hate hiring quotas because they screw over better applicants. God forbid you're not fair to everyone though. I'm contradicting myself so bad You're making me think too much. I come to work to relax not to think
-
You do outline one big problem with quotas - they aren't meritocratic. There's no real logical basis for a racial percentage quota, either. It isn't really "fair" unless we view races as collective groups with different entitlements. 13% of the U.S. population is black, but we wouldn't legislate that no more than 13% of the NBA must be black. There's no reason. Race is an arbitrary characteristic, and it shouldn't tie you to some sort of collective. We could make quotas for people who wear glasses. If, say, 30% of the population wears glasses or contacts, then is it somehow more "fair" to say that 30% of all employees at an establishment must wear glasses or contacts? No, because people who wear glasses aren't beholden to an identity group. They're just singular people that have something in common with 30% of the population.
