Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

Is this the libertarian paradise I've been told about?

Now *that* is an EOF thread I'd like to see. You're a natural.

 

Comedy has always been a powerful tool in fighting ideologies. It's the first thing that gets attacked when an authoritarian government takes root - once you make something funny, it's harder for you to be scared of it. There's a reason why Chaplin was doing the goose step, The Great Dictator did untold damage to Hitler's public image. Admittedly, Chaplin had some regrets about making the movie, but only because of the sheer extent of the atrocities committed - there's a fine line between mockery and making light of a given situation.

Am I truly free if I can't even own an army of child slaves? The world may never know. In all seriousness though, I'm fine with social consequences - I've always been a supporter of voting with your wallet. I have a big problem with job lynch mobs, as in groups of people bombarding someone's employer with mail because they don't condone something they said privately, but that's a different discussion altogether, one that I actually would like to see addressed. We already have a plethora of reason for which one can't be fired, I'd be more than happy to see speech become one of them, provided the utterance is made in private, not on company time.

 

I don't see what that has to do with job performance. This is something I'm in two minds about. On one hand, I fully support freedom of association. If someone doesn't want to hire you based on your views, I think it's their right to reject your application based on that fact alone. On the other hand, employers policing speech is not something I endorse - in your private life you should be able to voice whatever opinions you want, you do not represent the business in your free time, you represent yourself. Over time I've come to the conclusion that the way to adjudicate that fairly is actually rather simple.

If the employer was unaware of some kind of activity you're involved in at the time of hiring, that's tough luck. A contract is binding for both parties, both parties signed on the dotted line and both must necessarily uphold their end of the agreement. The onus is on the employer to interview and validate candidates for a given position, at the point of hiring - that was the time to decide whether a person aligns with the company or not. If the employer failed to screen candidates adequately, too bad - as long as the employee's job performance is satisfactory, I see no reason to fire them, particularly not for exercising their rights.

I don't like the idea of mobs forcing people out of jobs because they disagree with them, even if *I* disagree with them as well. Your example is a little absurd, but the framework still applies. An employment contract outlines precisely what is expected of the employee, and if it includes any violation of the employee's rights, I think it should be de facto null and void. That's in a perfect world, however - everybody knows that these days behaviour on social media is often times mentioned in those contracts. A sad state of affairs, to be sure.

For the record, this applies regardless of political alignment. I'm a conservative person, and I would not knowingly enter into a business arrangement with someone who endorses communism, for instance. That said, I would not terminate a business relationship after the fact - an agreement is an agreement. I might not renew it once it lapses, I might choose not to engage in future agreements with that individual, but I would fulfill the commitment I've made unless the other party broke the contract first.

To be fair though, this is not a firm belief. In an ideal world there'd be no such thing as a "protected class" and everyone would just focus on fulfilling their contracts to the t, but I have to work within the framework we've got. I can be swayed one way or the other, depending on the circumstances.

 

That's none of my business, for the same reason why it's none of my business if they're black, or gay, or a Muslim, or whatever else. An employment contract is not an endorsement of any practices people get involved in in their private lives. I'm also not here to adjudicate morality, are you asking me for some kind of truism along the lines of "lying is bad"? With all that said, if the question is in fact asked during the interview process and the candidate lies, or fails to disclose what's being asked, the contract is signed under a false pretense and thus null and void. It'd effectively amount to fraud, which equals immediate termination. This is standard practice in contract law.

 

They don't need to know then. If they can't ask a specific question along the lines of "how would you describe your political affiliation?" or "are you involved in any political or social movements?" then they need to revise their hiring practices. For the record, before the question is asked, there are no protections in regards to political affiliation in hiring, at least not in the UK where I'm based, and as far as I know, in the US, the area we're discussing. I'm not entirely sure if such questions are permitted (they should be), we're spitballing hypothetical here.

 

You're implying that only conservatives do "fucked up things". Are we conveniently forgetting about the crazy Bernie Bro who shot up a congressional baseball game? Because that happened, and not so long ago either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting