Libertarian Answer to 'Lily Ledbetter' Questions?

[Knightskye]

Say someone asks about "six month statutes" or pay discrimination...

What is the constitutional position?

[Epic]

The constitutional position is... it's not in there, so don't try it.

The law takes away freedom of contract.

Also, it will hurt the people it is trying to help. It essentially sets a minimum wage for women in certain situations. Plus, employers are more likely to hire white men now because the white men wont sue the shit of the employers at the hint of "discrimination".

[idiom]

Also, it will hurt the people it is trying to help. It essentially sets a minimum wage for women in certain situations. Plus, employers are more likely to hire white men now because the white men wont sue the shit of the employers at the hint of "discrimination".

Not yet anyways.

It is probably a harmless modification of existing laws to make them more relevant. The existing laws may be an issue. Probably they should be state laws.

Workplace discrimination has some interesting free market problems, as the market isn't free. The laws are designed to be market freeing regulation.

Discrimination is not a rational market impulse and it is not easily overcome by those subject to it. So from a free market viewpoint they are nto a bad thing.

However, even in America, we should be getting to the point where these laws can be repealed. Women and minorites can get anywhere they want to now. The regulation has corrected the distortions and it should stick on its own now.

[TastyWheat]

The Supreme Court should've never heard her case. What in the hell does the federal government have to do with wage disputes? The bill should have placed this decision with the states, which conveniently gave Lily Ledbetter the decision she wanted, and forbid these kinds of cases reaching federal courts.

[BarryDonegan]

the market ALWAYS beats the law on tolerance. look at gay marriage... we had full blown advertisements from mainstream companies like pepsi and coke targetting homosexual markets a full half decade before any inkling of gay marriage being legislatively possible.

same with the civil rights act, obviously a company would benefit from feeding all consumers, you don't need the law to force you to let everyone eat at your restaurant, the market will do a fine job shutting you down if you have idealogical motivations for who is allowed to eat at your facility.

if the pay at your job sucks, don't work there. get the govt out of the business of protecting monopolies and you won't ever see a problem.

[idiom]

if the pay at your job sucks, don't work there. get the govt out of the business of protecting monopolies and you won't ever see a problem.

Thats a great idea now. For a long time however a woman couldn't get a job anywhere or a loan to start a business.

Unless of course, there is a war on.

[Knightskye]

The constitutional position is... it's not in there, so don't try it.

Would that persuade a liberal, or make them upset and start using caps lock?

[Xenophage]

If you're looking for a response to a liberal, I'd try something like this:

"Pay discrimination against minorities and women is wrong. Just because something is wrong, however, doesn't mean you should make a law against it, because the alternative - dictating the terms and conditions of voluntary contracts between employers and employees - is also wrong. Laws like these are not just wrong because they are an act of coercion and an initiation of violence against the two parties who are engaged in a contract, but they also bring about unintended consequences for employers and employees alike.

Think, before you pass laws."

Maybe add on to that...

[Knightskye]

If you're looking for a response to a liberal,

Yeah, I should have specified that.


I'd try something like this:

"Pay discrimination against minorities and women is wrong. Just because something is wrong, however, doesn't mean you should make a law against it, because the alternative - dictating the terms and conditions of voluntary contracts between employers and employees - is also wrong. Laws like these are not just wrong because they are an act of coercion and an initiation of violence against the two parties who are engaged in a contract, but they also bring about unintended consequences for employers and employees alike.

Think, before you pass laws."

Maybe add on to that...

Maybe that we don't even know if Lily deserved to earn as much as her male counterparts if she wasn't as productive.

[idiom]

The 14th Amendment enables this type of thing pretty clearly.

[Knightskye]

The 14th Amendment enables this type of thing pretty clearly.


AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Enables what kind of thing?

[idiom]

Enables what kind of thing?

These laws are required because people like you end up in a court and can't understand how
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. means that blacks should be allowed to vote. Or, as in this case, gender should not be a legal justification of pay differences.

As you clearly point out, you need a law based on the 14th, to spell it out for you.

[TastyWheat]

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It wasn't the State's laws that abridged the "right to equal pay", the State was not depriving her of anything (except through taxation), and Ledbetter's male counterparts were receiving no more "protection" than she was (I assume her state had no law guaranteeing equal pay among male employees).

Lily Ledbetter wasn't suing a government entity either, she was suing her employer. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to resolve contract/pay disputes between two private entities.

[angelatc]

Say someone asks about "six month statutes" or pay discrimination...

What is the constitutional position?

I'd say Ledbetter should have left her job if she didn't like her paycheck.

But for the record, it is true. I have had payroll access at every company I've worled for the past 20 years, and every company has paid women, in the exact same position, less money than men.

But that doesn't mean I think the government should fix it.