Self-respect?

Self-respect?

There have always been self-indulgent narcissists. In the past they just didn't receive government subsidies for being that way.

Mr. Judd;

Not necessarily. This is just another variant of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Based on that, rationalism would conclude that the best solution was a global ban on this kind of thing.

AOG:

Orrin's not to blame for this one. I understand your argument, but I don't think you are addressing it from the point of view of the affected individual, nor from the general cultural context. To assume the majority will always show good sense and check excesses in the name of libertarian self-reliance strikes me as naive. These people aren't developing the sense of entitlement all by themselves in fit of selfish pique, they are simply responding to a zeitgeist shared increasingly by most.

Mr. Judd;

Sorry! It's just that you and Peter look so much alike to me.

Peter;

The issue is the existence of general laws, not the use of them. Clearly if the laws exist then one expects them to be used and abused. The libertarian solution isn't to depend on people's localized self-reliance but to eliminate the laws. That's what I meant by a "global ban" – that such laws would be considered unacceptable. It's the same principle as dieting by not buying bad foods rather than depending on your will power to not over indulge once such foods are in your house.

AOG:

Oh, c'mon. It's easy to tell us apart. I'm the one who suspects Eric and Julia are different people.

You can have a great libertarian party by repealing statutes willy-nilly, but you are still going to be left with the common law, especially in areas like employment, and that law will reflect cultural norms about basic fairness and equity. Do you think it should be lawful to fire or refuse to hire or advance an employee because she wouldn't sleep with the boss? Because he objected to a racial slur? Because he admits he roots for the wrong baseball team? Are you suggesting there should be no legal redress for such outrages?

Again, this isn't just about shadowy statist bureaucrats imposing silly entitlements on a sturdy, self-reliant population. It's about the growing general belief that there is no moral component to unhappiness and dysfunction, which are to be treated much like we treat the flu. That battle must be fought before we look to libertarianism or any other theory to provide practical legal answers. So we are looking to you, AOG, to lead the charge against rational darwinist reductionism and proclaim far and wide that man is a moral being made in the image of G-d.

You want to start today? I see no reason why not.

Peter: I don't believe that there is any state in the Union in which it is illegal to fire someone for rooting for the wrong baseball team.

David:

You're right, I'm mixing up common law and anti-discrimination legislation. You could refuse to hire on that basis, but anyone who fired or held an employee back for that reason had better be prepared to offer a generous severence because he would be a sitting duck in a wrongful dismissal action, no? Even up here that might attract punitive damages, which are normally almost impossible to get.

[N.B.: Nobody reading this should mistake the following for legal advice that is in any way applicable to specific facts and circumstances. It is not.]

Peter: The general rule in the states is that, absence a specific contractual provision requiring cause before an employee can be fired, all employees are employees-at-will who can be fired for any reason or no reason. Faced with a law school question in which Red Sox fan fires Yankee fan, the answer is that Yankee fan is out of luck.

The only exceptions are statutory limitations on discrimination and a somewhat vague public policy exception. However, the courts -- miracle of miracles -- have not expanded the public policy exception very much and at-will employment is very real in the states. To move to something slightly less ridiculous, it is not illegal under federal law to fire someone simply because he or she is homosexual. It is illegal in some states, but is perfectly legal in other states and, unlike the baseball fan hypothetical, actually happens.

In the baseball fan case, if the employee is black, or a woman, or disabled, or over 40, or, in some states, gay, the trier of fact might easily belive that fandom was a pretext, but if they believe the employer, then the employee would not have a claim.

David:

I surrender. Yes, here too. In theory you are completely right, but as a practical matter courts will look to the circumstances to decide on the length of notice the employee should have received and will be influenced by the of the parties. The problem with my example is that it is very hard to imagine an employer so stupid as to admit that was the reason. Normally he/she/it would allege something else and then the court would find that was the true reason, which introduces issues of good faith and credibility. But if I were a judge, I would delight in using my (lawful, of course) discretion to come to the aid of an employee who was put on the street for that reason.