I have to admit it: The concept that a person should be able to do whatever he/she wants with his/her business or corporation, as long as it isn't fraudulent or criminal, isn't easy to believe in -- to say nothing of declaring it publicly, where I might have to defend it. The arguments against such a belief are so numerous, particularly where social injustice comes in, they are almost cliché.

"But what if you are gay / straight / asexual? Shouldn't you have the same right to a job as everybody else?"

"But what if you are black / female / a three-handed, near-sighted Martian? Shouldn't a business consider you for employment the same as everybody, if you are equally qualified?"

"But what if you are a Christian / Buddhist / Unitarian / Atheist / Goddess worshipper ....?"

Yes, of course, to all of the above. Sometimes people aren't fair, but unfair is not the same as criminal. If it's not criminal, it's not government's business. I'll address these kinds of statements in several ways, because it wouldn't be intellectually honest to ignore them. There are often other solutions to problems that don't involve the thick-fingered grasp of government.

If this isn't an appropriate employee manual, should it be the basis of law?

In some of these cases, the characteristic that makes you, as a prospective employee, a 'minority' only becomes the employer's business if you want to make it his/her business: Belief system or sexual preference, for instance. Why would a person casually mention at a job interview, "By the way, I'm a goat-humping believer in the Great Frisbee, and I hope that won't interfere with my getting a job here."? At most places that I have been employed, it was generally not a good idea to discuss such things.

Racism is real. There is no denying it. There are some companies with people in authority that are ignorant enough that they will not consider a white or black or Asian or man or woman for certain jobs. In a world market, that kind of discrimination eventually leads to the company's own misfortune. Any firm that would turn down highly qualified applicants, in favor of the less competent -- who happen to be the 'right' race and/or gender is noncompetitive. (Isn't it too bad that even noncompetitive companies last so long?)

With modern methods of communication, there are ways to either hurry the death of a company, or motivate them to change their policies. The press is always looking for stories to publish about unfairness in hiring practices. One reporter and a newspaper publisher, armed with the truth, can convince a lot of people that they don't want the product or service of a company with unenlightened policies. (One person with evidence, a web site, and the ability to communicate, can do much the same thing.)

When racism or other discrimination is widespread in a particular region, it's a much bigger problem, of course. This needs a lot more work, and some people will remain ignorant until they, and all of their offspring, die of old age. In order to rectify one injustice, however, one does not perpetuate another. The cure is not to take away the right of an employer to hire according to whatever criteria he or she wants to take into consideration. Moronic management decisions have a tendency to result in the failure of the business -- more so when the word gets out.

You realize, of course, that you aren't nearly as qualified as -- say -- a slice of toast. However we do have our quota of whites to fill...

Picture yourself owning a business with employees. If you were to decide that you will only hire extremely tattooed people with bad skin and green hair -- that might be unwise. It might be extremely stupid of you. (Depending on your enterprise, that might be exactly the kind of employees you need.) But it is certainly not the government's business -- not under our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is not the government's responsibility, nor right, to stop a business from committing financial suicide, nor is it some bureaucrat's right to guarantee you a specific (or any, for that matter) job.

To bring any problem to a long-term fair resolution, it is easiest -- and usually necessary -- to start at the basic concepts, and work outward from there -- not vice versa. Government itself is usually the author of policies that create unfavorable conditions for 'minorities' -- which aren't always minorities at all, at least in the areas most affected by those policies.

The basic concept is: Thou shalt not initiate aggression. If someone refuses to hire me or allow me to advance in the company -- although I am the most qualified -- that is not initiating aggression. It may be stupid, and unwise, and even unfair, but in a free market economy, I can take my qualifications to a firm where management makes sound decisions. (In fact, why stay with a company that makes ludicrous business decisions?) Many people don't seem to be aware of the fact that employment works both ways. If you are skilled, educated, qualified, or just able-bodied for some particular type of work -- you have the resources. If you choose to work for somebody else, it's up to you to take what you have to a firm that will give you the best wages and benefits for what you have to offer.

In a healthy economy -- i.e., in a business climate where government interference is minimized -- the laborer usually has the upper hand. (Why do people stay in one job and gripe about it, when companies down the road are hiring, with better benefits?) The sad fact is that some people are disadvantaged because of circumstances that truly are beyond their control, and they have a hell of a time climbing out of it. My answer to this (and I admit, it's somewhat of a matter of faith with me) is that the majority of these problems have been caused by government's interference to begin with. If lawmakers and bureaucrats would keep their fingers out of what doesn't concern them, and concentrate on upholding the true rights of the People, our economy wouldn't be in the state that it is. The fact that our economy does go through periods of growth once in awhile -- even with the impediment of government regulation and excessive taxation -- is a tribute to the free enterprise system.

On the other hand, if any person or group of people use government power to force a company to change their hiring or promotion practices, the government -- and by default -- the people who motivate a lawmaker into such action, are guilty of initiating aggression. This is immoral, and as mothers have said since the dawn of time, 'Two wrongs don't make a right.'

If you don't have the skills to find steady employment in your area, doing something worth paying for, that's your problem to solve. Let's not worsen the problem by getting government involved even more. In the long run, you and your children will pay for every 'favor' you get, many times over, 'servicing' the budget deficit, while the value of the dollars you can scrounge up continues to devalue.

For those truly in need -- through no fault of their own -- there are institutionalized charities, and personal charity. Even with social welfare programs, government squanders the majority of the money they obtain from us by force. More resources go into the administration of social programs, than into the pockets of the recipients. I help people, when and where I can, but we would both be in a position to give much more than we do, if our money wasn't being taken from us and wasted.

The psychological difference between helping someone because you choose to, and being taxed for social programs, is as vast as the difference between making love and being raped. I believe that those 'more fortunate' should be willing to help those struggling to put bread in the mouths of their children -- but I have no right to force that personal belief on others. Those who clamor and vote for social welfare do believe in coercing people into what they think people wouldn't do out of charity.

If you believe that initiating aggression is ever justified under any conditions whatsoever -- if you believe that the end actually does justify the means -- get the hell off my web site. Take your belief to it's logical conclusion: buy a gun, and go mug someone. There are two primary differences between an armed thief and a person who is in favor of using the government to provide them with what they can't otherwise acquire: (1) the thief is less of a coward; (2) the thief doesn't waste my time attempting to convince me that I owe something to him.