Thursday, January 24, 2013

We Are the Tyrants

The colors here are perfect.
Over at Western Hero, Finntan wrote an article about a business owner who fired two of his employees because they voted for Obama.

A little more background.  The owner claimed that because of Obamacare, he had no choice but to lay off two employees to make up for the cost.  He fired two workers, and then he publicly stated that he fired them because they voted for Obama.  Their vote, he reasoned, was part of the reason that he had to fire anyone at all.  So to him it "made sense," that they should be the ones to go.

Ho--lee--shit.

I'm going to make this very simple for everyone reading.  There's a reason that people aren't allowed to harass voters at the polls about voting for a particular candidate.  I don't think anyone would actually morally support buying off voters.  I am fairly certain that everyone looks back on the Tammany Hall political machines--and others like it--with justified disdain.

It's fairly reasonable to assume that most people would take grave offense to being bullied into voting for a particular candidate.  How would you feel if your boss essentially told you "if you vote for Romney, I will fire you"?  I'm fairly fucking certain that you would feel as though your personal liberties--your freedom of thought, speech, and expression--were being infringed upon.

If you would not feel indignant about that--if you would simply "take it," out of some warped sense of what true freedom means--then you have a completely pale understanding of what freedom actually means.

What irks me the most is that there are people actually defending this guy, knowing full well that they would fly off the handle if they were fired for their political affiliation.  I'm not the only one who rails against the entertainment industry for being unfriendly towards conservatives.  So why are the same people who come to the aid of their persecuted conservative brethren so quick to abandon liberals facing the same affront to their right to vote with impunity?

Sure, there are consequences for expressing your opinions.  You can be ridiculed, ostracized by groups of people.  But should there be consequences for casting a fucking vote?!  Of course it's not against the law to fire an employee (non-government) over their political affiliation, but does that make it okay?

No.  Not even a little bit.

This country is officially screwed, but not for the reasons most people think.  The Republicans aren't ruining it.  Obama isn't ruining it.  We the People are ruining it.

In Nazi Germany, the National Socialist Party used its thugs to stamp out opposition to Hitler's vision.  In the Soviet Union, "The Party," sent its people to the gulags if they didn't fall in line with the dream of a totalitarian Communist paradise.   In America, We the People have taken upon ourselves the role of ideology enforcement.

The DNC and RNC don't even have to have secret police, because they've both duped their respective disciples and drones into doing the dirty work for them.  The fact that this man fired people because they voted Democrat coupled with the fact that there are people defending his actions as justified is indicative of a society that has completely lost all of its principles.  We the People no longer give two shits about freedom of thought.

Freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of expression means that you have to be allowed to exercise those liberties without reprisal.  George Orwell wrote about that very notion in "Freedom of the Press."  He derided his colleagues who spit on and publicly ridiculed political dissenters, because their purpose was to stifle debate and diversity of thought.

You can disagree with someone all you want.  You are free to express your disagreement, but there is a big difference between expressing yourself and taking action against someone for their beliefs.  This man destroyed these people's ability to support themselves and their family based on their political affiliation.  Sure, it is his right to fire whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants, but that doesn't absolve him from being a giant, hypocritical douchebag.

Being an ignorant asshole is not a crime, but that doesn't mean he's not an ignorant asshole.

I very much welcome philosophical debate on this.  If you support this guy's actions, you will lose, because supporting his actions based on the notion of freedom of (insert something) is a logical fallacy.  One day, every soul sleeping sound in the warm embrace of blind narrow-mindedness will wake up and see that the tyrants aren't on Capitol Hill.  We are the tyrants.

Go ahead.  Try me.

14 comments:

jez said...

This is why truly democratic ballots must be conducted in secret.

Silverfiddle said...

"But should there be consequences for casting a fucking vote?"

Are you kidding? Listen to the president:

"Elections have consequences"

Here are my comments from Western Hero, revised and extended:

If you believe in personal liberty and the right to do with your property what you wish, then you must support Mr. Lee. Period.

It is easy to say one who is pleasant has such rights; but our constitution and our nation was founded upon rights for all, even those who stake out unpopular positions or who say impolitic things.

As President Obama says, elections have consequences. Lee had to get under 50, so why not do it at the expense of those who enabled such talon-clawed statism?

Now, for those who want to discuss "Stalenesque," let's examine the state of the conservative college professor at public universities...

... Or the fate of Non-UAW workers, like at Delphi, when Obama took over GM



@ Jack: If you support this guy's actions, you will lose, because supporting his actions based on the notion of freedom of (insert something) is a logical fallacy."

Wrong. Our nation was founded upon property rights. And if you're going to allege a fallacy, then you must explain it, not just assert it.

The business owner may indeed be blindly narrow-minded, but I don't see the logical fallacy.

Anonymous said...

So here it is eh?

Ok, first off as you said it is not illegal, so nothing can really be done about this.

Secondly, if this guy had other motivations for firing them, such as attendance, work ethic, productivity, etc... then yes I am with him 100%. You don't have a right to a job. Private business can do whatever they want personnel wise.

So, with what we know, the layoffs were just politically based and that's it. On that information alone this guy is a total douchebag, but then again it is his business and he calls the shots. Grey Area. No I don't agree or condone that choice at all if that is the case, but ultimately it's not my call, it's this prick's call. He also has gained ill-will obviously for his actions, so that will have blowback.

I have had to fire only 2 from my employment, it took considerable bullshit on their part. It was regrettable, but they just weren't earning their keep on top of not being very cooperative. Some people just don't get it, sorry to say.

There has to be a two-way street in business. The key tenet is Win-Win scenarios. I would hate to have to run a small business these days with lots of employees like I have in the past... what a nightmare that would turn out to be.

Silverfiddle said...

My answer was a little harsh, so I'll add some more.

I do agree with you Jack, that the will to tyrannize others is strong in our human natures.

Exercising such tyranning in our personal spheres may not be wise, but it is within out natural rights to do so.

I take issue with this statement:

"One day, every soul sleeping sound in the warm embrace of blind narrow-mindedness will wake up and see that the tyrants aren't on Capitol Hill. We are the tyrants."

The tyrants are on capitol hill, but they are by no means the only ones.

Perhaps I am nitpicking, but I'm seeking clarity here.

Tyranny from capitol hill is worse than this man's tyranny. DC tyrannizes millions; he's tyrannized two. And Lee is on solid ground, since he's the business owner. DC owns nothing, yet tramples our rights daily.

Jack Camwell said...

Here is the logical fallacy.

If you believe that a Democratic society can only function when people are free to believe whatever they want and participate in the process however they choose, then you must agree that there can be absolutely ZERO coercion in the process.

Merely disagreeing with someone is not coercion. Threatening to fire someone based on how they vote IS coercion.

This is the message that business owner sent to his employees: if you vote Democrat, or for any politician that is going to affect my business, you're fired.

That is coercion, and it's wholly wrong. It has nothing to do with property rights. Property rights do not extend to willful discrimination.

You can't bar anyone from your establishment based on race or religion. You can't fire anyone based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. So why should people be allowed to fire others based on political beliefs? So you can't bring up property rights because there are already restrictions placed upon business hiring and firing practices.

So, if you believe in the freedom of everyone to participate in the democratic process as they choose fit, then you cannot believe that it is okay to punish people for how they choose to participate in the process (by participation I mean voting however they damn well please). If every vote is to be truly cast out of a man's free will based on what he truly believes, then every voter should know that they will not face reprisal for their vote.

The conesquences of national policy are completely different from immediate consequences enacted by some cavalier asshole like Terry Lee.

It's just like Orwell said. There can't truly be freedom of thought if dissenters are always heckled, shamed, and insulted.

Silverfiddle said...

You make an anti-liberty, statist argument:

You can't bar anyone from your establishment based on race or religion. You can't fire anyone based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. So why should people be allowed to fire others based on political beliefs? So you can't bring up property rights because there are already restrictions placed upon business hiring and firing practices.

What you say is legally correct, but these government actions, while beneficial to those discriminated against, are indeed a violation of the establishment owner's property rights.

He is no longer sovereign in his domain; the government is.

Will you deny that?

So your argument is that government has already violated one's property rights, so it's OK for them to do it some more.

I also reject your premise:

If you believe that a Democratic society can only function when people are free to believe whatever they want and participate in the process however they choose...

It's not a bad statement, but it is incomplete, and that is not what our constitutional republic was founded upon.

It was founded upon the right to life, liberty, and property.

These rights function differently depending on whose property you are standing on. You are sovereign when standing on your own, with the caveat that you still may not violate the life, liberty or property rights of others. You can't physically harm someone or enslave even when standing on your property, but you can tell them to shut up or order them of of your property.

When on the property of others, you are subject to their rules.

In the public sphere, the government is sovereign, so they set the rules (which also now frequently violate our liberties).

I recommend this article to you:
Property, Rights, and Liberty

Jack Camwell said...

Making discrimination unlawful is not even close to being a "property right" violation.

If you are a business, you are operating in the public sphere. It is not the same as your own home which is considered private. Stop trying to equate owning a business to owning a private residence. It's not the same.

If you believe our constitutional Republic was NOT founded on the notion of a free society, one in which all citizens could participate in the political process without fear of reprisal or coercion, then you are not very well read--or you greatly misinterpreted just about everything our founding fathers wrote.

Liberty cannot be maintained in a place where people live in fear of exercising their right to participate in government unmolested.

"When on the property of others, you are subject to their rules." Sure, but when you open up your property as a place of business, you agree to follow the rules set forth for operating such a business.

But it seems to me that you don't seem to be down with the laws set forth by the Civil Rights movement. Shall we go back to segregation since apparently it's wrong to deny a business owner the "right" to refuse services to black people?

You're reaching on this one, Silver. You know as well as I do that liberty cannot exist when others are permitted to trample the liberty of others. I would consider firing someone based on political beliefs to be such an affront to liberty.

Do you really want to go back to the days of Tammany Hall? Why is it okay for a private citizen to bully others about their politics, but it's not okay for a politician or government employee to do so?

A society cannot truly be free if people live in fear of choosing a particular set of beliefs.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver does not grasp that what you do with your private property in the public sphere is regulated by that public. He thinks you should be able to do business in the public sphere without the public having any recourse to how you do that business. Blind, ideological lunacy.

JMJ

FreeThinke said...

Jack,

I'm not going to go back and restate my position on this, but please go back to Western Hero, try to read what I said with CURIOSITY, instead of filtering it through your own perceptions and clouded by your assumptions.

The facts of the case are NOT as you stated them. You have misunderstood A) the humorous aspect of the situation, B) the moral aspect of it.

The only thing that Terry did that I do NOT support was opening his mouth like a braying jackass to tell the world what he did. He made a very sound, completely logical, eminently fair BUSINESS decision.

High dudgeon doesn't flatter you. Please, get over it! ;-)

Jack Camwell said...

Fair would be if he fired them because out of everyone, they had the lowest performance.

Fair would have been laying them off due to seniority.

Fair would have been laying them off specifically because their positions were not profitable to the company.

He fired them because of their political views. For all that asshole knows, they might not even have supported Obamacare.

Anonymous said...

Fair would be getting the *all* the facts first-hand as well Jackie, not just the juicy controversial ones.

I am unsure what you would have us do, you are laying out a federal case against a man who is politically biased. It's no different than racism, this is one cat with one business.... That now has a black-eye.

I mean he shot himself in the foot here, he gained nothing with his statements.

I get your moral attitude towards "People have the right to be free politically" but you and I both know 2 choices isn't a choice at all brother. It's covert vote fixing these days.

Yes, we don't want persecution based on voting record. However, We are for persecution of small business owners running their business how they wish?

Grey area, again.

FreeThinke said...

Jack,

I'm disappointed in you. Regretfully, I have to say -- particularly given your attitude on this particular issue -- that you appear to have the soul of a typical hall monitor.

It is not up to you to refashion the world in your image. It is up to all of us to adjust ourselves so that we may survive and prosper to the greatest extent possible in what-will-always-be a challenging environment.

As JFK -- of all people -- said in his inaugural address:

"LOFE IS NOT FAIR."

Please, just get used to it while doing your best to maintain your own integrity.

We cannot be free, if we are not free to make mistakes, and to make unpopular choices and decisions.

That does not mean, however, that you -- or anyone else -- should be "free" to attend one of my formal dinner parties in the nude, stand on the table, loudly proclaim, "Your food is SHIT, and your guests are ASSHOLES!" then piss on my floral arrangement either.

The only "asshole" at that party would be you, and I would have every right to have the police come and cart you away to the nearest insane asylum for extended observation. ;-)

SIlverFiddle is right, as usual. You should listen to him and abide by his superior wisdom.

Jack Camwell said...

There is a huge difference between me crashing your dinner party, in your private residence, and some guy firing someone--destroying that person's livelihood which has real, measurable effects--because of his political affiliation.

You and Silver are completely missing the point. You think that such bully tactics are totally fine so long as a government official isn't the one doing it. But the truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter WHO is doing it.

Political coercion is wrong. Period. This has nothing to do with utopia or whatever. It's flat out wrong. It's totalitarian.

I mean, this is some Stalin shit. The best part is that the government doesn't need to do it, because it's already duped people--like you--into thinking that it's totally fine.

The property rights argument does not hold up, and the "free to make mistakes" argument does not hold up either. I have always been an advocate of "we need to be free to make our own mistakes." The line is drawn when our mistakes affect measurable harm on others. In this case, these men were terminated from employment because of their political beliefs.

If the moron fired them because they were shit employees, or because of seniority, he would have come out and said so. We have all the facts that this asshat chose to let us know, so why are we saying "oh well, there might be more to it?" Why does it matter? He told us why he fired them, and he said it because he wanted to make a political statement.

So sure, we're free to make mistakes so long as it doesn't fuck over someone else's life.

No sane person would *ever* argue that equal opportunity employment is a bad thing (EO is different from affirmative action, so please spare me the diversionary side argument). It's not a bad thing to make it illegal to fire someone over race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation.

Outlawing systematic racism, sexism, and plain old discrimination is not a bad thing.

So why are you all totally fine with political bullying? Go back to the 19th century where you belong.

Silverfiddle said...

If you are a business, you are operating in the public sphere. It is not the same as your own home which is considered private. Stop trying to equate owning a business to owning a private residence. It's not the same.

A statist progressive could not have said it any better.

After the long history of union stuff that goes on, you seriously want to talk about coercion in the workplace?

And your explanation of a fallacy, isn't.

We deal with the consequences of our actions all the time.

Your private home relies on public utilities, and the government already has used your line of logic to regulate toilets and light bulbs. Have fun careening down that road.

You've been arguing cogently for gun rights, but this line of argumentation gives government a clear mandate to disarm all business owners.

Unfortunately, the rest of us are forced to ride along with you.