Double Standard Discrimination

Just noticed something that we often accept as "normal practice". Males are charged higher insurance premiums because they are deemed higher risk. I agree most accidents are caused by young male drivers. But indeed we are all tarred with the same brush.

If this logic was applied to others areas of society, there would be absolute uproar! Let's take for example terrorist attacks. The vast majority of terrorist attacks are committed by muslims. Does that mean muslims shouldn't be allowed citizenship into specific countries? Of course not, because it is only a select few of muslims who commit terrorist attacks in the west, in the same way it is only a select few of newer drivers who behave wrecklessly.

In the workplace, a young woman is more likely to become pregnant and risk the company thousands of euro in maternity leave payments. There's a much greater risk to the company bh employing a young woman than a young man. Should the woman be discriminated against because of this risk? Of course not, it's outlawed in Ireland and I assume most western countries.

The reality is, the vague labelling of new drivers as "risky" is merely an excuse for collusive, oligopolistic insurance companies to maximise profits and exploit the consumer. Sanctioned by the bloody road safety authority!
Food for thought fellas.

Uncomfortable truth: Every form of discrimination you listed is reasonable, bro.

Написао Acquiesce, 13.11.2019 at 06:29

Uncomfortable truth: Every form of discrimination you listed is reasonable, bro.

From your perspective but from the vast majority of people in europe, including the european court of justice, it's not. By this logic women would never get a job... nice one acq

Написао Wheelo, 13.11.2019 at 06:49

It's the government's job to enforce equal justice under the law, not to change the way a party pursues its own private interests. Your entire post is fallacy from beginning to end.

Insurance companies ought to charge whatever insurance premiums they want on whoever they want. If a particular insurance company alienates men, then men will contract with another insurance company that doesn't. If every insurance company charges exorbitantly high insurance premiums on men (which is improbable), then they will lose business from a key demographic. A new insurance company will capitalize on the demand from this key demographic, and generate funds. Generally, this is unnecessary because insurance companies will compete for the same demographic (i.e., where the demand is), thus reducing the price. It doesn't matter whether men are charged more than any other demographic, if you do not like the insurance premium, then don't contract with the insurance company. If you're willing to accept the fact that men are in accidents on average more than women, then accept the contract. Insurance premiums aren't the only aspect of the contract, either. There are many other factors involved in a contract, which weighed together sometimes gives men a financial advantage over women; if a man demonstrates his ability to drive over a specific length of time, the contract might stipulate that the insurance premium be reduced to less than a women's, thus making up for the overpaid amount. This incentivizes men to contract with one insurance company over another, and this is how free markets work, get a grip.

The first example and second examples you gave are incomparable. Race alone should not be used to determine who is a terrorist, seeing how terrorists span many races. Indicators are required to determine who is a terrorist, such as a bulge in his or her jacket or a hat that reads, "Death to America." A Muslim should be granted citizenship if he passes these indicator tests and, of course, passes the citizenship requirements which test his or her principle (i.e, adherence to the political democracy and the enlightened ideals on which America was founded) and potential (i.e., ability to contribute to the American economy; that is, a return on investing valuable public resources into the immigrant).

Women should not receive maternity leave payments because it's not the government's job to enforce them. It's a women's decision to get pregnant (barring rape, in which case there are exceptions, usually addressed through a court), it's a women's choice to have sex, and it's a women choice to leave her job for the purposes of raising a baby. If the government ended the required maternity leave payment, then employers would not be concerned about hiring women. If they are concerned about hiring women based on, for instance, prejudice, then that will only harm the business and reduce their potential capital or gains. Other businesses will accept the qualified woman, thus harming the business who does discriminate. This doesn't mean that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

Написао Tribune Aquila, 13.11.2019 at 09:12

---

This is your brain on libertarianism, folks. Everything looks like a nail when your only analytical tool is the free market hammer.

Написао Acquiesce, 13.11.2019 at 09:37

Написао Tribune Aquila, 13.11.2019 at 09:12

---

This is your brain on libertarianism, folks. Everything looks like a nail when your only analytical tool is the free market hammer.

Name me another analytical tool for these "nails." How else are you supposed to put a nail in a coffin? With a rock? With your foot? How about with a hammer? Hammer is the most effective tool, and it's the most innovative.

I'm not libertarian. I believe that there are certain functions of government that if we, as a people, decide are right, should be implemented. For instance, there is a libertarian argument to be made for roads and driver's licenses, but I think government should be involved in BOTH of those areas! Governments should build the roads, and state governments should administer driver's licenses. But, obviously, people should be allowed to construct private roads or even administer private driver's licenses for those private roads (assuming an insurance company does not require insurees to receive a government-issued driver's license, which in all cases they do require it because the government obligates it, which I'm OK with).

Написао Tribune Aquila, 13.11.2019 at 09:12

It's the government's job to enforce equal justice under the law, not to change the way a party pursues its own private interests.

Re-read what you just said. The whole point of government intervention is to PREVENT inequality BECAUSE of firm's pursuing these interests in an unfair way. You've literally managed to contradict yourself in one sentence, well done.

Написао Tribune Aquila, 13.11.2019 at 09:12

Insurance companies ought to charge whatever insurance premiums they want on whoever they want. If a particular insurance company alienates men, then men will contract with another insurance company that doesn't. If every insurance company charges exorbitantly high insurance premiums on men (which is improbable), then they will lose business from a key demographic.

This idealistic comment is extremely naive. If you had a basic knowledge of economics you'd know that insurance firms are oligopolies and are often part of what is known as a 'cartel', a group of firms who collectively agree to charge a minimum price in order to maximize profits. It's a well recognised argument that insurance firms are most likely in collusion with one another, either explicitly or implicity. Not to mention other exploitative practices such as dual pricing, elasticity etc..
So no, a new firm will unlikely capitalize on these high prices, not only because this "new" firm most likely does not exist, but also because a newer firm will not want to engage in a price war with a cartel of multinationals.

Написао Tribune Aquila, 13.11.2019 at 09:12

This incentivizes men to contract with one insurance company over another, and this is how free markets work, get a grip.

The insurance market is not a "free" market. In fact theres no such thing as a free market anywhere in the world. The man may receive a lower quote in a year's time, but will lose a lot of money after insuring unfairly for over a year.

Написао Tribune Aquila, 13.11.2019 at 09:12

The first example and second examples you gave are incomparable. Race alone should not be used to determine who is a terrorist, seeing how terrorists span many races. Indicators are required to determine who is a terrorist, such as a bulge in his or her jacket or a hat that reads, "Death to America." A Muslim should be granted citizenship if he passes these indicator tests and, of course, passes the citizenship requirements which test his or her principle (i.e, adherence to the political democracy and the enlightened ideals on which America was founded) and potential (i.e., ability to contribute to the American economy; that is, a return on investing valuable public resources into the immigrant).

Oh my. Are you aware your president motioned to ban this certain demographic from your country, purely on the basis of creed? Do you know how easy it is to fake one of your bullshit "indicator" tests? I've never seen an argument so naive.

Funnily enough, you've literally proved my point that they ARE comparable in an attempt to prove they're not. You've mentioned these "tests/indicators:" for accepting people in america. Are you aware there are no "tests" for newer drivers? Attitude is not assessed like in these indicators. You've added a variable to one side of the comparison without adding it to the other, well done, you've countered your own argument.

Написао Tribune Aquila, 13.11.2019 at 09:12

Women should not receive maternity leave payments because it's not the government's job to enforce them. It's a women's decision to get pregnant (barring rape, in which case there are exceptions, usually addressed through a court), it's a women's choice to have sex, and it's a women choice to leave her job for the purposes of raising a baby. If the government ended the required maternity leave payment, then employers would not be concerned about hiring women. If they are concerned about hiring women based on, for instance, prejudice, then that will only harm the business and reduce their potential gains. Other businesses will accept the qualified woman, thus harming the business who does discriminate. This doesn't mean that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

I happen to straddle the line on this issue, but the fact is, these payments DO exist universally in the west. If you understood my post correctly you'd realize I was pointing out that if the government is to legislate against one type of "discrimination", it will have to legislate for any others too, hence the 'double standard'.

Написао Tribune Aquila, 13.11.2019 at 09:48

---

If discrimination is the problem and free markets are the solution, how do you explain the success of businesses that discriminated against blacks in 20th century America? Shouldn't they have all gone out of business when colorblind businesses took advantage of black customers?

Написао Acquiesce, 13.11.2019 at 10:04

Написао Tribune Aquila, 13.11.2019 at 09:48

---

If discrimination is the problem and free markets are the solution, how do you explain the success of businesses that discriminated against blacks in 20th century America? Shouldn't they have all gone out of business when colorblind businesses took advantage of black customers?

I don't explain it. You've actually just de-bunked my entire worldview and now I have to rethink my purpose in life.

Just kidding.

Why did businesses stop discriminating? Mostly because of basic economics. The black population was expanding during the early 20th and mid 20th century, which was a huge pool of demand for products. When blacks started to boycott discriminatory businesses, this provided the impetus for those businesses to adopt anti-discriminatory policies, even if it alienated some white consumers. See, for instance, the Greensboro Four. These boycotts could not fully eliminate discrimination, but that's OK, there are options for the people those businesses discriminate against.

The only reason why blacks were discriminated against to begin with was because of 1. widespread racial prejudice in America, 2. 14th Amendment. A progressive view of the 14th Amendment says that the separate but equal doctrine can persist within public services; similarly, that's where economic substantive due process comes from. None of those interpretations are correct. Even though economic substantive due process enforced the liberty to contract between two parties, which is a good thing, that's not actually constitutional. Meaning, even though government can set minimum wage laws, that doesn't mean it should. Because minimum wage laws are the most anti-black laws in the world, seeing how blacks are predominately poor. Additionally, look at Plessy v. Ferguson. Public serivces should be non-discriminatory, but not private. The separate but equal doctrine was a progressive interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Free markets solves all this, so discussion over.

Написао Wheelo, 13.11.2019 at 10:02

Well, regardless of your position on anti-discriminatory laws, my position is that there should be none governing private entities, and that maternity leave should not exist. We can agree to disagree on that argument.

With respect to your argument on monopoly:
There are three types of monopolies. The efficiency monopoly, the collusion monopoly, and the government monopoly. An efficiency monopoly has never existed, but theoretically occurs when one company produces a product so efficiently that it drives all competitions out of business. The collusion monopoly, which is the one you spoke of, has never worked successfully because of free market economics, not because of government intervention. Let me explain. First of all, to establish a collusion monopoly ("cartel") each of the constituent firms has to start investing in expensive administration to enforce a fixed price among them for a certain product. Naturally, each firm is distrustful that one of the other firms will break ranks. The problem is that they can write a contract and have it ratified by government so that none of the firms can legally break the cartel. This is one reason why Europe has suffered more from collusion monopolies than the United States. This was the situation in the European truck industry for decades. Absent of government intervention, someone will break ranks, slash prices, and screw over the cartel by stealing the vast majority of the market share. The others have a choice, either they can try to force the firm to jack up prices again, or they can drop their prices too. If they don't, they will be put out of business. Absent of anyone breaking the ranks, a new startup could take on the cartel, stealing all customers and the market share. The only thing preventing this from happening is red tape and government regulation, which makes it difficult for people to start a business in the first place. In a free society where one can start a business, if none decide to, then this only means that the product the cartel is producing is not in high demand and thus their monopoly is negligible. If demand is high, someone will break the cartel and rein in the profits.

The stated purpose of antitrust laws is to protect competition and the public interest, but in reality they actually hinder competition and harm consumers by serving the special interests of a few politically-connected competitors (see government monopolies).

"Comparing the Fortune 500 companies in 1955 to the Fortune 500 in 2014, there are only 61 companies that appear in both lists. In other words, only 12.2% of the Fortune 500 companies in 1955 were still on the list 59 years later in 2014, and almost 88% of the companies from 1955 have either gone bankrupt, merged, or still exist but have fallen from the top Fortune 500 companies (ranked by total revenues). Most of the companies on the list in 1955 are unrecognizable, forgotten companies today (e.g. Armstrong Rubber, Cone Mills, Hines Lumber, Pacific Vegetable Oil, and Riegel Textile)" (see https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fortune-500-firms-in-1955-vs-2014-89-are-gone-and-were-all-better-off-because-of-that-dynamic-creative-destruction).

Написао Wheelo, 13.11.2019 at 06:07

Just noticed something that we often accept as "normal practice". Males are charged higher insurance premiums because they are deemed higher risk. I agree most accidents are caused by young male drivers. But indeed we are all tarred with the same brush.

Yes

Написао Wheelo, 13.11.2019 at 06:07

The vast majority of terrorist attacks are committed by muslims. Does that mean muslims shouldn't be allowed citizenship into specific countries?

Yes

Написао Wheelo, 13.11.2019 at 06:07

In the workplace, a young woman is more likely to become pregnant and risk the company thousands of euro in maternity leave payments. There's a much greater risk to the company bh employing a young woman than a young man. Should the woman be discriminated against because of this risk?

Yes

You're right, there would be an uproar, but by who? Not the public. Rational policy is never conducted and most policies that are discriminatory are aimed at negatively effecting white people, especially white males.

Написао Acquiesce, 13.11.2019 at 10:04

If discrimination is the problem and free markets are the solution, how do you explain the success of businesses that discriminated against blacks in 20th century America? Shouldn't they have all gone out of business when colorblind businesses took advantage of black customers?

White people didn't visit the colorblind businesses. Take a wild guess as to why. And guess what? They still don't. They generally avoid areas with high black populations. Don't pretend you don't either. Everyone knows the 'unsafe areas' in their town or city. Everyone avoids them, and if their own area becomes populated with certain groups, the people with money tend to leave. Everyone has code words and terms to describe these area's. 'Bad schools', 'bad parking', 'noisy neighborhood' or 'unclean restaurant'. It's all code because people are terrified of the state-enforced social consequences of saying what they think out loud.

Segregation was supported by the public, and desegregation was largely opposed by the public. Desegregation had to be enforced, with military backing, even against blacks who also generally opposed desegregation.

America still remains largely segregated as do all urban areas across the world. People of different groups may be forced to work together, but they choose to live separately from one another.

The ENTIRE American market, public transit and housing is built on this desire to avoid one another and especially for whites to avoid groups they don't want to associate with. White people with a bit of money will actively seek housing far from urban areas into the expensive suburb, drive 3-4 hours a day, all so they can avoid public transport and to send their kids to schools with mostly pale face.

I'd bet all my life savings that if you lived in New York, you would avoid the subway system like the plague and pray you could save up enough to afford never taking it again.

I'm really sick and tired of people claiming to oppose'racist', generally being the worst hypocrites of all.



It's sooo baffling why those businesses and systems wouldn't succeed if people were given the choice without state and institutional reprisal. So baffling. I can't imagine why. They must be intrinsically evil to avoid such places.



Baffling.



Nothing people want more on their journey to work than 'dancers' flailing their legs about in a cramped underground public transport and unable to leave.



Such bigots for avoiding this.

Написао Tik-Tok, 16.11.2019 at 09:00

White people didn't visit the colorblind businesses.

Which was exactly my point. Relying on colorblindness or trusting in the market (I only see green$$) is an absurdity. Desegregation was achieved through the force of the state power, not through the invisible hand.

Написао Tik-Tok, 16.11.2019 at 09:00

Just because Acquiesce is moderator doesn't mean he's white you noob. And he is from New York (if i remember correctly what he said), so stop making mistakes and learn with whom you're talking to

Btw, 3-4h driving? Are you crazy? I commute 15min to town(its free and no crime) and already pondering to kms, and you drive 3h, in the region with crime? What the point of life then...

Acqui tricked Ivan and Amok into believing he was white by showing them his love of Oasis.

Написао Wheelo, 13.11.2019 at 06:49

Women would get jobs, they'd just be paid a fair bit less. I agree with Acqui on this. Anyone should be allowed to discriminate for whatever reason they please when doing buisiness.

Написао Acquiesce, 16.11.2019 at 09:29

Which was exactly my point. Relying on colorblindness or trusting in the market (I only see green$$) is an absurdity. Desegregation was achieved through the force of the state power, not through the invisible hand.

And it was an extremely immoral thing to do. It also alludes to the simple point that it will never work out. Enormous state power is required to enforce a social policy that most people actively move away from.

Написао Skanderbeg, 16.11.2019 at 17:47

Just because Acquiesce is moderator doesn't mean he's white you noob.

Do you honestly think that makes a difference? Everyone wants a proximity to whiteness.

Написао Acquiesce, 16.11.2019 at 09:29

And he is from New York (if i remember correctly what he said), so stop making mistakes and learn with whom you're talking to

Do you know big the state is? Do you really think people with money remain in the 'diverse' areas? Either they move to the suburbs or rent apartments in the city center.

Написао Acquiesce, 16.11.2019 at 09:29

Btw, 3-4h driving? Are you crazy? I commute 15min to town(its free and no crime)

>15mins
>commute in new York

New York isn't some slavic town in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. There's nothing worse on this forum that someone who thinks they know what they are talking about.

The city has almost 9 million people living it alone. The traffic is horrendous. Most people with money drive into the city from outside of it and the drive can take 2 hours. So 2 hours to work, and 2 hours from work. Do keep up, old man.

Написао Acquiesce, 16.11.2019 at 09:29

and already pondering to kms, and you drive 3h, in the region with crime? What the point of life then...

Avoiding the 'urban' locals, obviously. Why else are they doing it? For fun?