A problem for libertarian theory: what if every company in your town got together and refused to hire, buy from, sell to, or even admit on their premises, black people? Or Jews? Or Republicans?
In theory, the market fixes problems eventually ... but to be perfectly fair, "eventually" is measured in centuries or millenia, and that's way too long to wait. I am not opposed to checks and balances via government, when necessary.
But because the government is so heavy-handed and powerful, I would much prefer that market forces be given the opportunity to redress wrongs, first.
And then there's the matter of "At what point does this become so wrong that it needs government redress?" The actual example of Weyco's policy is clearly wrong. What they are doing is invasive, cruel, and inappropriate. But that doesn't mean it needs to be illegal. The people who left should be able to find work elsewhere, and given the environment Weyco is promoting, they'll probably be happier overall working somewhere else than they would if Weyco were forced to find a sneakier way to promote their agenda.
On the other hand, your more extreme counter-example does require the force of law to correct, especially if the group of people so stigmatized cannot compete. (Eg, they are so disadvantaged they cannot set up their own business.)
At what point does the problem of Weyco become severe enough that it requires government intervention? I'm not sure. But I look on the government as a cure often worse than the disease. If the market's own immune system can shake off the virus of Weyco, that would be easier all around.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Good point
Date: 2005-01-28 05:32 pm (UTC)In theory, the market fixes problems eventually ... but to be perfectly fair, "eventually" is measured in centuries or millenia, and that's way too long to wait. I am not opposed to checks and balances via government, when necessary.
But because the government is so heavy-handed and powerful, I would much prefer that market forces be given the opportunity to redress wrongs, first.
And then there's the matter of "At what point does this become so wrong that it needs government redress?" The actual example of Weyco's policy is clearly wrong. What they are doing is invasive, cruel, and inappropriate. But that doesn't mean it needs to be illegal. The people who left should be able to find work elsewhere, and given the environment Weyco is promoting, they'll probably be happier overall working somewhere else than they would if Weyco were forced to find a sneakier way to promote their agenda.
On the other hand, your more extreme counter-example does require the force of law to correct, especially if the group of people so stigmatized cannot compete. (Eg, they are so disadvantaged they cannot set up their own business.)
At what point does the problem of Weyco become severe enough that it requires government intervention? I'm not sure. But I look on the government as a cure often worse than the disease. If the market's own immune system can shake off the virus of Weyco, that would be easier all around.