Banks and (Other) Corportations

Something just occurred to me, and I wonder what you think of it.

It seems the liberals and Washington are talking from two perspectives on what is really one issue. Are we in favor of big corporations or not? We bail out the banks. You might say, 'Well, "our" banks are the foundation of doing business in the US.' We also bailed out GM, and we have many non-GM cars all over the country.

On the other hand, Wal-Mart is the great evil. It's a big corporation and, therefore, evil. We want small businesses who pay good wages, not Wal-Mart who can force people to take jobs at low costs.

What is the difference between banks and car companies on the one side and Wal-Mart on the other? They both make profits in general, quite a lot I would guess. If you work for a bank, are you getting paid a large amount of money? If you work at a car factory, are you raking in the dough? Why are there opposing views of these big businesses?

Criminal vs. Civil Law

Once again, start with the terms. It is typical to say that the criminal law is the part of the law which forbids or commands behavior because behaving in that way or not behaving in another way is disadvantageous to the larger community, not just the two parties involved in the initial behavior. Civil law is said to deal with disputes between individuals where there is a disagreement or an allegation of negligence which may or may not have caused harm to someone (http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/criminal_civil_law-en.asp?l=4).

I just want to suggest another way of defining criminal and civil law for a government who takes its job to be to punish those who infringe on the rights of others. Criminal law would consume careless negligence resulting in harm because one cannot be allowed to be thoughtless with the lives and welfare of others on the line. It seems civil law would be reserved for contract negotiations (before there is a breach).

As it is today in America, as I understand it, criminal cases can result in various forms of punishment, any goods or resources that are transferred away from the defendant go to the state. Most civil-case settlements or rulings, on the other hand, transfer goods from the defendant to the plaintiff. This would change. Even assuming states can actually be offended, disadvantaged, or harmed by a crime, appropriate criminal cases would include transfers of goods from defendant to victim(s). The damage done to X by Y when Y steals X's $100 (assuming it is not traumatizing, etc.) is mostly remedied when Y is commanded to pay X $150, $400, whatever. Perhaps there would be an additional penalty for the effect the defendant had on the larger society or on the state.

It seems to me that criminal law should include more behavior, that civil law should include less, and that criminal law should include a new type of punishment in its courts: restitution directly to the victim.

One Necessary Characteristic of Human Rights

Human rights do not conflict with each other without someone making an infraction on a human right.

It is easy to see the outlines of the argument when one considers rights as God-given. God does not contradict himself. If rights natually came into conflict, God would, apparently have contradicted himself because the rights in conflict could not both be respected, i.e., we would be unable to treat our neighbor as he or she ought to be treated.

If rights are given by a community, they must be treated as inflexible (seen as something that cannot be justly trampled on or otherwise broken or ignored). If the majority's acceptance or promotion of an infringement justifies the transgression if a right, then human rights reduce to near, if not complete, meaninglessness.

Without settling on which human rights exist, there is little to say about how human rights will affect specific policy decisions. We have to be able to state what these rights are if we are to pay careful attention to protecting these rights. This stating of rights (including the times at which it does not apply as one might intuitively think) is required to make the best policies and to protect human rights. For example, if a human right were well-stated as 'any person who is a government official has the right to drive anyone's car whenever that official pleases', then a good law would be that it is illegal for a non-government-official to refuse to lend a government official his or her car. This would protect government officials' right stated above.

I wrote this because I am afraid that we are seeing increasing amounts of policies that are made in the name of human rights, but these rights and the other rights (like right to property) are not being stated at all, much less as a complete framework of interrelated and coherent rights. Without this, we are in danger of promoting some supposed rights by infringing on other supposed rights without realizing what we are doing. An increase in the number of related and explicit statements of rights we use in policy discussions will increase the clarity with which we view policy decisions.

Seeing Citizens as Individuals is Key

I would especially like feedback on this post. I don't feel as sure as I usually do about this one.

The government's seeing its citizens primarily, if not exclusively, as individuals--as opposed to members of groups--promotes equality before the law. Citizens are people. All citizens fit into group, it is true, but not all citizens are members of all the same groups. If the government treats citizens as members of specific groups, it is more likely to use stereotypes--and not treat the members of particular groups equally. It will be more likely to have skewed dealings with members of group X without knowing that person's situation. "Oh, this person is an Irishman. He probably drinks a lot." In situations in which government emphasizes the groups one is in above the person one is, the level of justice will be diminished. If an Irishman is being tried for being in a bar fight in which he was not involved, it does not matter whether the Irish drink a lot. The case involves where that individual was, whether he was drinking, whether he had a part in the fight.

This does not mean that individuals' rights to associate will not be protected. It seems the rights to associate, when viewed as a part of individual rights will be more easily guarded. The question will not be "Should this specific religious group be allowed to stand on this specific street and chant their specific message?" When we talk about popular groups, we have certain responses, depending on whether we agree or disagree with the groups' messages, and perhaps wrongly whether we hold a grudge against a group based on their ethnic background, e.g. If we could avoid talking about groups when possible, it might promote the ability of jurors, judges, politicians, and others to see the situation with less bias. Pro-life people might support the loud protests right on the border of the property belonging to an abortion clinic because they support the protesters. However, if the situation is considered focusing on individuals, the situation might be cast as "Should an individual be able to stand on the border of a business' property, intruding by noise on the business' property?" This would promote a more fair review of the situation, and it comes from a proper view of citizens primarily as individuals.

Affirmative Action and Equality

Remember equality before the law? It applies to affirmative action. "Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination" (Wikipedia).

As I understand it, there are two kinds of affirmative action: affirmative action in government actions about government employees/admission to public educational institutions/etc. and affirmative action taken by private institutions, companies, etc. I want to consider both.

First, a point that needs to be made is that affirmative action is bias toward particular groups based on race, color, etc. (things we generally consider characteristics that should not be held *against* someone in the hiring process, even though many people are okay with 'valuing diversity' and giving the job to someone in an 'underrepresented group'). My point is that equality before the laws implies equality NOW. Although those underrepresented may be disadvantaged compared to their situation had their parents not been discriminated against, the inequality was not directly against them. Even if affirmative action for an individual who was directly discriminated against could be justified, giving an advantage based on race, religion, etc. cannot be neither politically justified for governments nor morally justified for private individuals (except for positions like Black Americans Group President or Methodist minister).

Second, one cannot give preference to one group of people without disadvantaging others. It seems nicer to talk about giving preference to the children of those who have been discriminated against in the past--and whose discrimination has adversely affected the children's situations (not all discrimination does this in every case)--than to disadvantage someone who has worked hard whose parents have not been historically discriminated against for being White, Protestant, or heterosexual, doesn't it? Yet, it is intuitive that giving preference to one group discriminates against another.

Government Affirmative Action

Some people think equality before the law meshes with affirmative action. The government is trying to bring about equality between the various social groups, right? However, I think some people who realize that preferring one social group disadvantages another would see that equality before the law cannot coincide with a purposeful disadvantaging of any social group, especially in the name of equality. Therefore, affirmative action is improper for a government of the people.

Private Affirmative Action

Affirmative action by private institutions and individual is something quite different. Private institutions are not institutions 'of the people'. We do not have the right to be equal before Hannaford, McDonald's, Steckle and Smith Law Firm, or Boston Medical Center (assuming these are privately run). They can choose whom they desire, valuing to the extent they wish or not valuing the social groups from which they applicants and employees hail. Whether it is morally right for private individuals to value 'diversity' or not is not my concern here. A company inflicts no harm on individuals by not hiring them, not giving them a 401k, or not giving them vacation time. If they don't want the job with the pay and benefits, they don't have to do it.

Racism as Idea

Let's assume I've made the idea that government should not dictate what people believe except if it harms or if the idea promotes (not merely increases the risk of) harm to others. The individual should be able to choose from the range of lifeviews available in his or her free society. The government should not coerce someone into various religious, social, or other views.

What about the idea of racism? It's bad, right? We'll take the racism of Whites against Blacks as an example. Racists are prejudiced against other people simply due to the color of their skin. That's unfair and wrong. Skin color has to do with how much melanin is in one's skin; the level of melanin in a person's skin is no basis for a judgment of their person or a reason to look with disfavor or hate on them.

Should the government criminalize racism? It depends. The government should criminalize racism of the type that leads to groups of White citizens hanging Blacks. However, there are other types of racism that do not meet the harm requirement. Some people see Blacks with disfavor because they are Black. This will affect their choices in employment, housing, and other areas. As citizens conducting their private lives with their own property, however, not giving someone something does not meet the harm principle. People are not (should not be) obligated to rent to, employ, or otherwise deal with anyone (excepting binding contracts and the like). People should be free to dislike, hate, ect. other people, as long as their views do not advocate inflicting harm on them.

So, am I saying the government should not take a stance on racism? No, absolutely not. Remember equality before the law. Government should be against all racism in all its actions, not favoring or penalizing based on skin color. However, the government should not criminalize its citizens racism and racist actions--as long as they do not inflict harm on others or have something that strongly encourages the inflicting of harm on others.

Morality is Not an Ultimate Justification for Legality

In a society which respects the right of citizens to think for themselves, moral claims cannot be the ultimate justification for outlawing certain actions. We begin to erode individual liberty of thought if we begin justifying laws based on our own moral structures. We still, however, need to make certain things illegal. Why should some acts be illegal?

In order to preserve the autonomy of individuals and the freedom to think for oneself, the government should embrace something like the harm principle. Mill and others have written about the harm principle. I understand it as saying that the only reason for the infringement of liberty is to prevent harm to others. This infringement takes place in the creating of laws and the punishment of those who break these laws.

If the government criminalizes anything but acts of positive harm, i.e., inflicting harm on others, (or perhaps believing things which promote the positive harm of others, e.g., believing that all race car drivers are evil and it is the responsibility of good people to assassinate them), it is showing disregard for equality because it limits the autonomy and freedom of thought among its citizens. This goes against equality before the law.