Affirmative Action may be on the way out

[pockyD]

^If that level of comfort is purely based on the color of someone's skin, then I disagree. But if a black guy gives a terrible interview, then he shouldn't get the job.

how well an employee fits into their work environment is by all means a reasonable qualifier when deciding on job candidates

if your customers hate black people, then it makes no sense to hire a black person. if all your other employees dislike black people, then it also makes little sense to hire a black person. we don't make modeling agencies sign fatties just to even out the distribution

how do you propose it be decided, ceteris paribus? flip a coin?

 

[Hive]

if the bias exists, then so be it. If a manager is more comfortable working with a white person than a black person, it should perfectly within their rights to choose the candidate they are more comfortable with

I don't think they should be allowed to do that at most levels...this promotes discrimination which should be limited to some degree by gov. in hiring and education...
Letting managers hire purely on the basis of skin color is beyond more than just the AA, it allows bypasses of discrimination laws as well... (unless you meant it to a lesser degree than you said it...)....

if those customers hate black people, that's not a good excuse to only allow white people in the workplace
That would be allowing those discriminations to exist, even promoting this kind of discrimination bc it allows better profits for a company. Which is bs.
government should be concerned with looking after the concerns and wellbeing of its citizens.
(also, these kinds of laws allow more diversity to exist in all companies... so it wouldn't be serving their customer's interests less either, now would it? Unless those customers would like to hate ALL companies bc of it...)

 

[Jam Stunna]

how well an employee fits into their work environment is by all means a reasonable qualifier when deciding on job candidates

if your customers hate black people, then it makes no sense to hire a black person. if all your other employees dislike black people, then it also makes little sense to hire a black person. we don't make modeling agencies sign fatties just to even out the distribution

how do you propose it be decided, ceteris paribus? flip a coin?

The reason why this thread was started was to decry Affirmative Action as a racist policy. You're suggesting that we allow employers to make race-based decisions in hiring. That's exactly what we DON'T want.

If certain people don't like working around someone of a different color, suck it up. You're not getting paid to like your co-workers, you're getting paid to do your job. That's the point: if you can do the job, you get hired. A fat person cannot model skinny jeans.

How about this: I just started attending a new school, and in one of my classes I'm the only black person. If all of my classmates go to our professor and demand that I be removed because I'm black and they don't want me around, should he comply and ask me to drop the class?

EDIT- And yes, you should flip a coin. If you cannot find a merit-based reason to qualify or disqualify someone for a job position, that doesn't make it okay to make race a factor, something that no one has any control over. That's what's wrong with the fire fighter case, race is being used to punish.

 

[pockyD]

if those customers hate black people, that's not a good excuse to only allow white people in the workplace
That would be allowing those discriminations to exist, even promoting this kind of discrimination bc it allows better profits for a company. Which is bs.

it's either a "racist"-looking company, or no company at all, and NOBODY has a job, and depending on what business you were, maybe nobody in your town has fresh fruit or functional plumbing

government should be concerned with looking after the concerns and wellbeing of its citizens.
(also, these kinds of laws allow more diversity to exist in all companies... so it wouldn't be serving their customer's interests less either, now would it? Unless those customers would like to hate ALL companies bc of it...)

I disagree with big government, but that's a slightly different issue. Also, what's so great about diversity? If my 20 best options are black, let me have 20 black employees. If they're white, give me those.

The reason why this thread was started was to decry Affirmative Action as a racist policy. You're suggesting that we allow employers to make race-based decisions in hiring. That's exactly what we DON'T want.

Face it; go to any small southern town, and you'll find people not too fond of black folk. Now, if I'm opening a small general store there and only hiring one employee at a time, do I want a to hire a black person in the interest of "fairness" (whatever that means, as we're already assuming the black person and white person are equally 'qualified' in terms of legitimate qualifications), consciously knowing that my business will suffer?

It's not how I, the hiring manager perceives their race... it's how my target audience and customers do. It's not like I can just pack up my store and open it in upstate new york instead just because my town doesn't like black people

If certain people don't like working around someone of a different color, suck it up. You're not getting paid to like your co-workers, you're getting paid to do your job. That's the point: if you can do the job, you get hired. A fat person cannot model skinny jeans.

In the scenario we are discussing, a white and a black person both can 'do the job' equally well. Once again, how would YOU decide?

Do you think that employees getting along really has no impact on their productivity? If your other employees ignore your new hire for whatever reason (maybe they're black, or maybe they're just smell, maybe they wear crocs or have a weird mole directly on top of their nose), then your productivity has dropped as a result of your new hire

what was the right approach? well, if you valued non-racism, you should have made sure to hire non-racist employees to begin with, on the grounds that if they WERE racist, they would not be as well-suited to a job where you interact with others as well as a non-racist would.

How about this: I just started attending a new school, and in one of my classes I'm the only black person. If all of my classmates go to our professor and demand that I be removed because I'm black and they don't want me around, should he comply and ask me to drop the class?

if you're already in the class, I don't see how that applies.

EDIT- And yes, you should flip a coin. If you cannot find a merit-based reason to qualify or disqualify someone for a job position, that doesn't make it okay to make race a factor, something that no one has any control over. That's what's wrong with the fire fighter case, race is being used to punish.

...but when race does affect your company's productivity, how can it not be a factor? Note that in this case, race isn't directly a factor; it's "ability to work with coworkers" (or customers)

whether they had any control over it or not is irrelevant when it affects the job being done. I'm not going to hire a man who was born armless to be a waiter. I might not even hire a man with mild facial deformities, simply because I don't want that kind of image in my restaurant

 

[Pr0phetic]

And yes, you should flip a coin. If you cannot find a merit-based reason to qualify or disqualify someone for a job position, that doesn't make it okay to make race a factor, something that no one has any control over. That's what's wrong with the fire fighter case, race is being used to punish.

I completely agree with you Stunna, especially with what i quoted you above, and maybe the majority here. Race isn't anything but a change in the pigment of skin as far as i'm concerned, and sure is by no means a ground for job hiring.

 

[pockyD]

I completely agree with you Stunna, especially with what i quoted you above, and maybe the majority here. Race isn't anything but a change in the pigment of skin as far as i'm concerned, and sure is by no means a ground for job hiring.

sure, in a world where everyone shares your attitude, this works out

it's pretty ignorant to assume that's the case, though

 

[SuperBowser]

Sorry, but I'm not going to be tolerant of intolerant people. Especially when we are speaking about people's livelihoods.

 

[pockyD]

that's great, but it's perfectly legal to dislike anyone you want

 

[SuperBowser]

And currently illegal to not give someone a job purely because you don't like the look of their skin.

I specified people's livelihoods.

 

[pockyD]

and yet that's not the argument i'm making

i'm sorry, but where do all these ridiculous qualifiers like "purely", "simply", etc. keep coming from?

stop misinterpreting my argument

 

[SuperBowser]

if the bias exists, then so be it. If a manager is more comfortable working with a white person than a black person, it should perfectly within their rights to choose the candidate they are more comfortable with

Oh?

When it comes down to it, if skin colour is allowed to be a determining factor it will allow worse candidates to get a job. Your hypothetical scenario is pretty unlikely.

The fact you are using an example where a manager is afraid his current employees might not like the look of the new guy is ridiculous. That basically means the worse candidate will get the job in the real world. Or does this determining factor only play a role when everything else is equal?

 

[pockyD]

Oh?

When it comes down to it, if skin colour is allowed to be a determining factor it will allow worse candidates to get a job. Your hypothetical scenario is pretty unlikely.

The fact you are using an example where a manager is afraid his current employees might not like the look of the new guy is ridiculous. That basically means the worse candidate will get the job in the real world. Or does this determining factor only play a role when everything else is equal?

This entire line of thought (which was not even started by me) was completely based on "everything else is equal"; it doesn't feel like you've actually been reading the thread

On the other hand, what's to say that their "differences" don't already make them a 'worse' candidate directly?

Returning to the restaurant, let's say a guy applies to be a waiter, but instead of a real nose, he has a very ridiculous-looking mr. potato head nose (maybe he lost his nose to skin cancer or something). Even if "skills-wise", he is the equal of another candidate, do you really believe that having mr. potato head serve you your dinner would not produce a different vibe from your standard, "normal-looking" waiter?

There's more to hiring qualifications than your skill set.

 

[SuperBowser]

This entire line of thought (which was not even started by me) was completely based on "everything else is equal"; it doesn't feel like you've actually been reading the thread

No, that quote above was your own doing. Nobody forced it. If you want to retract it, fine.

I'm sorry I didn't understand your scenario. Race magically matters only when everything else is equal. How silly of me!

Btw, restaurants and acting are two industries where you can discriminate based on appearance so your example doesn't really work.

 

[pockyD]

No, that quote above was your own doing. Nobody forced it. If you want to retract it, fine.

If there are two applicants that are about even in terms of qualifications, and one is white and the other is black, which one do you think is going to be hired? The existence of AA makes the black hire a guarantee, unless the person is a rampant racist, which is supposedly defeated by affirmative action (it isn't).

whoooooops

Btw, restaurants and acting are two industries where you can discriminate based on appearance so your example doesn't really work.

...but why can you discriminate there? What's so special about a waiter?

 

[SuperBowser]

whoooooops

Evil Eye's post changes nothing about yours. You still advocated hiring someone based on their skin colour and nobody made you.

 

[Jam Stunna]

whether they had any control over it or not is irrelevant when it affects the job being done. I'm not going to hire a man who was born armless to be a waiter. I might not even hire a man with mild facial deformities, simply because I don't want that kind of image in my restaurant

Those are practical considerations. Of course no one should hold it against you if you don't want to hire a person in a wheelchair to be a busboy. What you seem to be saying is, "My employees are prejudiced, so I have to accommodate them, even if I don't personally agree." You do not.

I'm going to assume that you think that race-based discrimination is wrong. So why would you allow it to occur in your place of business?

 

[pockyD]

Evil Eye's post changes nothing about yours. You still advocated hiring someone based on their skin colour and nobody made you.

You asked where 'all things equal' came from. I showed you.

I'm not going to bother repeating my argument when you clearly haven't read it though. I'm sure it's plenty debatable (this isn't one of the things I'm sure I'm right about), but you aren't touching any interesting points, instead just basically saying "wow your position is dumb!!!"

...but why can you discriminate there? What's so special about a waiter?

Also, I'd appreciate why you believe waitstaff is a position that should be permitted to discriminate

Those are practical considerations. Of course no one should hold it against you if you don't want to hire a person in a wheelchair to be a busboy. What you seem to be saying is, "My employees are prejudiced, so I have to accommodate them, even if I don't personally agree." You do not.

What about customers?

...and you don't HAVE to accommodate them; you CHOOSE to because you want them to be thinking about the work, not about how much they hate that guy over there

I'm going to assume that you think that race-based discrimination is wrong. So why would you allow it to occur in your place of business?

Well, I personally happen to hold the ideals of freedom and capitalism higher than those of equality and "fairness". I realize that this isn't necessarily standard, but I think it's far from preposterous

 

[RDK]

I think what he's trying to say is that it should be left up to the person doing the hiring to determine for themselves what the criteria for the hiring is, and not some lobby organization pushing AA.

Although I'm not sure, seeing as how I've read the last page or so and still can't really decipher exactly what the hell Pocky is trying to say.

It's perfectly fine to be racist within your own private organization; it's your business, you decide who gets hired. It's not ethical, and it probably shouldn't happen, but that's life.

In any case, increasing workplace diversity shouldn't be forced on the employer. That's wrong.

 

[pockyD]

I'm saying that race or other things have an impact on how productive someone will be in a position, and it's often out of their control

It's up to the employer to maximize productivity, and not necessarily strictly by hiring the "most skilled" employee

 

[Jam Stunna]

How can you believe in capitalism, a merit-based economic system, and believe that people should be excluded from that economic system based on non-meritorious criteria?

 

[pockyD]

How can you believe in capitalism, a merit-based economic system, and believe that people should be excluded from that economic system based on non-meritorious criteria?

huh?

capitalism calls for minimal governmental involvement, preferring to allow natural economic forces drive the decisions that private businesses make

if businesses fallaciously choose subpar workers based on racial or whatever criteria, it will reflect in their overall product. if they choose correctly, then they chose correctly.

capitalism isn't really about "rewarding merit"; it's allowing those with merit to reward themselves

people of any race should be free to open businesses and hire whoever they want. no one's being excluded unless they aren't the optimal employee

 

[Hive]

pocky's right- capitalism is a form of econonmy that allows individuals to decide what, how, and for whom to produce...
The assumption being that left sort of on its own the economy will distribute and produce resources efficienly...
It doesn't necessarily call for minimal government involvement though, that is confusing it with laissez faire, and classical economics.
Government still has a very important role in the economy: for one it allows conditions for trade to exist, i.e. common currency, enforcable contracts, breeches in contracts being executed by the gov. instead of individuals, preventive measures against monopolies (that would limit competition), etc, etc...
The government is very much necessary for the economy and for competition to exist as it does in a capitilast economy...

But I DO think that allowing opportunities for other races would not only be good in this framework morally, but economically as well. It would increase demands in certain markets, foreign investing would increase, company interactions would increase, and would also force employers to hire more on the basis of credentials instead of what race they prefer. (different races, groups would now have more interest in companies, and also receive more employment opportunities so spending will increase)
(like I said before, people now hire in ways that make credentials LESS important. The AA and discrimination measures help fix this, they DONT push this the other way.) It would also close the gap in between upper and lower classes. Which in turn means that spending will increase.
I would even argue that it doesn't lessen demand in these companies with discrimination rules, even if their customers only do prefer one race or gender, or w/e, since all companies would have to do this, the effects of it are going to show up in all companies, and the customers aren't going to have the luxury of hating all companies for it.

Edit: also, don't think that pocky is racist or anything guys ^^ He's actually a REALLY kwl person irl!

Edit2: I mean, look at how much the introduction of women into the workforce jumped the economy after WWII... More employment opportunities is a GOOD thing...

 

[LordoftheMorning]

I think what he's trying to say is that it should be left up to the person doing the hiring to determine for themselves what the criteria for the hiring is, and not some lobby organization pushing AA.

Although I'm not sure, seeing as how I've read the last page or so and still can't really decipher exactly what the hell Pocky is trying to say.

It's perfectly fine to be racist within your own private organization; it's your business, you decide who gets hired. It's not ethical, and it probably shouldn't happen, but that's life.

In any case, increasing workplace diversity shouldn't be forced on the employer. That's wrong.

I find it remarkable that I can so passionately agree and disagree with the same person in different aspects.

people of any race should be free to open businesses and hire whoever they want. no one's being excluded unless they aren't the optimal employee

How does this fit in to hiring minorities first?

Why is it that people assume that there's racism in businesses and college? Is it because generally speaking, there are fewer amounts of them?

1. Affirmative action, at its core, assumes that the majority (white) is in control of business and are loaded with cash.
2. AA assumes that these people are racist.

To make a judgment like that based on a person being white is racism. It's a type of racism that whites don't feel comfortable complaining about because then they'll be branded as racist themselves if they do.

I had an interesting experience yesterday. There is a kid on my bus who is autistic. Apparently he was causing a problem, because I woke up (I sleep on the bus) and the bus had stopped. The bus driver was trying to get this kid to sit down, and he repeatedly refused to do so. Finally, after a sort of struggle, they got him to move seats and sit.

I sit close to the back, and there are 4 black girls sitting in the same area. I know them quite well. They were all loudly complaining about the kid's behavior and how they would have been beaten, or something, had they done the same sort of thing. The autistic kid could definitely hear them, and it was obvious that they were making things worse. So I asked them to be more quiet and change the subject of their conversation. One of them said something along the lines of
"Just because you don't agree with my culture and don't understand it doesn't mean I have to be quiet." They scoffed at me and proceeded there discussion of the boy with the "mental issues" loud enough for everyone to hear, and they were the only ones speaking on the whole bus.

I don't attribute their obnoxious and insensitive behavior to their race, but it made me wonder how far this brand of racism had become ingrained into America's culture. I really didn't like the idea of being called racist because of the color of my skin. I wonder if this is the same sort of thought involved with AA.

 

[aeghrur]

pocky's right- capitalism is a form of econonmy that allows individuals to decide what, how, and for whom to produce...

Lol, then obviously America's now exactly capitalist now is it?
Individuals don't get to decide what to produce, they can select some products, but they're restricted to things the government would prefer you to produce instead of others. Ex. You an produce tobacco, but not cannabis.
Nor do you get to choose how to produce it because obviously, there are a lot of regulations on how to produce everything.
Anyways, iunno why I said this, I guess it's just trying to understand what my teacher said about no country being capitalist. =/

As for affirmative action, it seems we all agree that it should be gone, lol. I see debates, but not about whether affirmative action should be kept, but more about less regulation or more regulation, lol. Of course, that could just be me mis-interpreting.

 

[SuperBowser]

You asked where 'all things equal' came from. I showed you.

I'm not going to bother repeating my argument when you clearly haven't read it though. I'm sure it's plenty debatable (this isn't one of the things I'm sure I'm right about), but you aren't touching any interesting points, instead just basically saying "wow your position is dumb!!!"

Maybe if you spent less time being rude, I would have moved on. I clearly wasn't the only one confused about your position.

Your original post was made after two posts about discrimination. It's not exactly surprising that I didn't think it included ''all things are equal'' when this was in reference to a non-quoted single paragraph 5 posts above.

 

[Hive]

Why is it that people assume that there's racism in businesses and college? Is it because generally speaking, there are fewer amounts of them?

It is because with the same credentials there are fewer of them. consistently. the logical conclusion is then that racism exists in businesses and college, unless you attribute this to chance somehow?

The people on the bus were insensitive and intolerant... however I wouldn't use that to show anything on a larger scale.

1. Affirmative action, at its core, assumes that the majority (white) is in control of business and are loaded with cash.

This isn't the point of affirmative action though No one is assuming that white people are loaded with cash either. :/ The assumption behind affirmative action is that different races have harder times finding employment then white people, which can be shown (repeatedly) in labor statistics. The point of affirmative action is to try to balance these rates of employment. This also DOES NOT mean that minorities will be hired more than white people now with the same credentials. The proof? Affirmative action exists. Minorities are still hired less with the same credentials. Therefore affirmative action doesn't account for all of the racism in employment. White people still have a large advantage in hiring, complaining that we now have an unfair disadvantage in employment is silly when we have the best hiring rates out of anyone.

 

[pockyD]

Maybe if you spent less time being rude, I would have moved on. I clearly wasn't the only one confused about your position.

There's no reason to try to butter people up... this is the internet, and all that matters here is the ideas, not the person behind them. If I suddenly found out that you were a homeless guy leeching internet off a lan cafe and living in a garbage can, that wouldn't change what I think of what you're saying. If you're having trouble telling the difference, maybe the debate hall isn't for you.

Regardless, how was I being "rude"? You called me out, and I showed you that you were wrong. Move on, there's nothing personal here unless you really want it to be.

Your original post was made after two posts about discrimination. It's not exactly surprising that I didn't think it included ''all things are equal'' when this was in reference to a non-quoted single paragraph 5 posts above.

let's see...

if a white male and black male with identical credentials are both being considered many of you still are under the impression that AA will make the black person hired more. However this is not the case. Preexisting bias in the hiring makes the white person more likely to be hired even with the AA.

if the bias exists, then so be it. If a manager is more comfortable working with a white person than a black person, it should perfectly within their rights to choose the candidate they are more comfortable with

These are two successive posts, and I think the repetition of the term "bias" makes the train of thought pretty clear.

Sorry if that confused you, but whether I am polite or not has no relevance to the debate

I don't get what's confusing anyway; each of my posts is a response to someone else, so you can find your context there.

I'm not here to preach; I'm here to debate, so what other people say influences what I say

 

[RDK]

Lol, then obviously America's now exactly capitalist now is it?
Individuals don't get to decide what to produce, they can select some products, but they're restricted to things the government would prefer you to produce instead of others. Ex. You an produce tobacco, but not cannabis.
Nor do you get to choose how to produce it because obviously, there are a lot of regulations on how to produce everything.
Anyways, iunno why I said this, I guess it's just trying to understand what my teacher said about no country being capitalist. =/

We're a pro-capitalism country, but we've never (and no country has, really) had a truly free economy. At best we have a mixed economy because for some reason the government thinks it's okay to stick its greasy little hands into the market and muck things up.

Government should exist to protect the rights of individuals and that's about all it should have the power to do. That shouldn't extend to regulation of the market.

 

[SuperBowser]

I didn't say you had to be polite at all. I simply said that the confusion would have been cleared up faster if you were.

(You didn't directly quote and that post on its own can be taken a different way, so confusion isn't surprising. Not that it matters anymore.)

 

[Aesir]

We're a pro-capitalism country, but we've never (and no country has, really) had a truly free economy. At best we have a mixed economy because for some reason the government thinks it's okay to stick its greasy little hands into the market and muck things up.

Government should exist to protect the rights of individuals and that's about all it should have the power to do. That shouldn't extend to regulation of the market.

Markets need rules to follow though, economic anarchy isn't a good thing either.

I may have said this in another debate but I'll repeat it. There are two forms of regulation, there's good regulation and bad regulation.

Furthermore I would argue a pure free market would eventually stagnate growth and monopoly's would form.

Right our government has bad regulation, it needs to be replaced with good regulation, but of course regulation is only as good as it's regulators too.

I just realized this debate is on affirmative action, woopse! Oh well if you want to debate about this more make a thread, I said what I wanted to say.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

The government generally tries to enforce anti-discrimination laws on private enterprise with some kind of "interstate commerce" thing, There was a landmark case about it regarding a hotel in the South:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States

In a free market and laissez faire economy, the government should have no say about the choices private businesses make in employees or customers (though, anything that gets government tax money I think is fair game for enforcing desegregation). I think the judges in the case just tried to find some clause to have grounds to enforce desegregation because they figured it would be less palatable to people to uphold free enterprise that allows private racism.

 

[aeghrur]

We're a pro-capitalism country, but we've never (and no country has, really) had a truly free economy. At best we have a mixed economy because for some reason the government thinks it's okay to stick its greasy little hands into the market and muck things up.

Government should exist to protect the rights of individuals and that's about all it should have the power to do. That shouldn't extend to regulation of the market.

Regulation is keeping the economy alive.
Without regulation, the economy would spiral out of control. A pure capitalist economy will not work because sooner or later, the producers will be gone. =/

 

[manhunter098]

How would the producers be gone?

 

[RDK]

Regulation is keeping the economy alive.
Without regulation, the economy would spiral out of control. A pure capitalist economy will not work because sooner or later, the producers will be gone. =/

Judging from this post, I do hope you realize you know nothing about economics.

 

[Aesir]

Judging from this post, I do hope you realize you know nothing about economics.

This might be the only time we EVER agree on the economic issues.

Lets enjoy this moment.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

^^^ Lol!
I think what RDK means to say is that he completely disagrees with your economic policy, and that it leans toward communism, which is a whole other debate entirely, even though it is quite relevant to this subject (that was a lot of commas).

It is because with the same credentials there are fewer of them. consistently. the logical conclusion is then that racism exists in businesses and college, unless you attribute this to chance somehow?

That's a ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, sir. Also known as the causation fallacy. Is it not possible that there could be less minorities with the same credentials because there are less minorities in the population? Or perhaps, theirs a culture with different values?

Believe it or not, Bill Cosby gave a speech concerning this issue. I'd say these things myself but I'm afraid I'd be called racist for saying them because I'm white (another great example of modern-day oppression). You can find it here, it's good stuff, imo.

What shocked me about those people on the bus was that I knew them. Then they just pull that sort of stuff out of their hats? It's the same thing I get when I talk about AA or the Black Student Union irl. There seems to be an assumption that whites are inherently racist. It's not specific to a race, but this sort of idea is becoming more and more common among the general populace, and this idea is racist to whites (yes, that's possible). Why should I be held accountable for the actions of my ancestors? If there's going to be some equality, then it **** well should be equal equality.

 

[Hive]

if its flawed reasoning, then would you kindly explain then how people of the same race with the same credentials get hired less when they go for a job other than that causation for me? I just don't understand how you can, justifiably, attribute this really to anything other than racism in hiring... :/

ps I'm not a guy! <.<

 

[aeghrur]

Judging from this post, I do hope you realize you know nothing about economics.

So you seriously believe in economic anarchy?
Okay.

 

[RDK]

So you seriously believe in economic anarchy?
Okay.

Did I ever say that? That's about the moral equivalent of having no government at all. Unfortunately, government is necessary for any type of mutual trade to exist between two people.

I said regulation should be reduced to the protection of the interests of individual citizens in the free market, and just that. We've never had a truly 100% free economy because government regulation is out of control.

 

[Aesir]

^^^ Lol!
I think what RDK means to say is that he completely disagrees with your economic policy, and that it leans toward communism, which is a whole other debate entirely, even though it is quite relevant to this subject (that was a lot of commas).

Was that directed at me?

Did I ever say that? That's about the moral equivalent of having no government at all. Unfortunately, government is necessary for any type of mutual trade to exist between two people.

I said regulation should be reduced to the protection of the interests of individual citizens in the free market, and just that. We've never had a truly 100% free economy because government regulation is out of control.

So you agree the market needs rules to follow?