We Killed Off Lochner for This?
Another oblivious contribution from the increasingly silly New York Times “Ethicist” column. The question put to him:
I own a busy cafe-delicatessen with 25 employees. All the workers except two enjoy listening to background music from the radio while they work, as do I; those two say it irritates them, gives them headaches and makes it hard to talk to the customers. I turned off the music, but most of my workers say I’m unfair. Should I heed the majority or respect the wishes of those two employees?
–H.D., NEW YORK
“Heed the majority”? In a private business owned by a private individual? Since when is a business subject to the mob rule of “democracy”?
Not to cede any ground in the battle to restore economic substantive due process, but let’s keep at least some perspective here. We are not talking about minimum wage laws, workplace safety regulation, bans on bigoted discrimination or even second-hand smoke. It’s a radio. Radios are not toxic, music is not a workplace hazard and anti-noise malcontents are not a suspect class.
So does our self-declared “Ethicist” tell the proprietor to tell his two dissenters to take a flying leap? That a reasonable work environment is, um, reasonable and that, even under the most oppressive anti-business labor laws, there is no such thing as a right to an unreasonable accommodation?
I admire both your concern for working conditions and your nod to workplace democracy. And while the minority should be protected from the tyranny of the majority — or else we would all be assailed by the Top 40 — here you have a supermajority, 24 out of 26, more than what’s needed to break a filibuster or override a presidential veto, a near-consensus worth heeding. Are there situations when majorities are too slight to set some policies? Yes. Is this one? No.
Forgive me for being a bit sensitive to notions of “the tyranny of the majority” this week, but how dare this idiot debase the noble notion of protecting political minorities in the public arena, by applying it to a private setting where it has no legitimate applicability.
Forget the “tyranny of the majority” — what about the tyranny of the property owner? The decision should be his to make, according to whatever considerations he values most — maximizing the productivity of his work force as a whole; maximizing revenue by drawing in more customers, or just playing whatever music he enjoys most, regardless of profits.
Instead, the “Ethicist” nitpicks what constitutes a “supermajority,” as if he were James Madison working on an early draft of Article I, Section 7. Good grief.
Is there no aspect of private enterprise left where an employer can simply say to his employees, “This is how it is; if you don’t like it then quit”? Is there no sphere left, public or private, where feeding the rabid beast of majoritarianism is not deemed the highest possible virtue?
Previously:
–On Narcissistic Altruism
—
The Billboard Liberation Front has partnered with Wachovia to release a daring advertising campaign that celebrates Wachovia’s new money management strategy. This campaign emphasizes the silver lining in the economic storm front now threatening to swamp our economy as well as our individual fiscal inner tubes.
…
The BLF has been improving outdoor advertising since 1977. Prior campaigns have included work for Exxon, R.J. Reynolds, and Apple Computers.
In case you can’t decipher what these cretins are talking about:
It’s quite simple really: Maliciously destroying other people’s private property is not only a crime. It is not only a tort. It is evil. Pure, unconditional, uncondonable evil.
And pretending that it is not evil, but rather “cute” or “clever” or “artistic” is also evil.
(Via Boing Boing — where there is plenty of evil in the comments.)
Previously:
–Sign of the the Times (Square)
Filed under: Capitalism, Freedom of Contract, Property Rights
Meh, I cannot get too upset by this, as a new shareholder in Wachovia and guarantor of all of its bad debts.
As are you, Kip.
Evil? Really?? That sounds more than a little silly. But you haven't provided a definition of evil.
The defacers of this billboard are expressing opposition to an ideology that they feel is harmful to the vast majority of American citizens. Their intentions are to prevent this harm.
You argue that Wachovia and Clearchannel (the billboards' owner) are harmed in the process.
When I weigh these two possibilities, your declaration of 'evil' seems all the more silly.
PS–Libertarianism and its cousins are based on a false premise. The actions of all people on this planet, and our fates, are interdependent. Individual liberties and individual merits, as understood by Libertarianism, do not exist. You were born into a certain position within a pre-existing matrix of a power. The liberties you have experienced, and your achievements, are dependent upon a host of inequalities and injustices. It is highly doubtful, e.g., that if you'd been born into a Bombay slum you'd have arrived at your present philosophy. Libertarianism simply circles back to the original power struggle between the beneficiaries of the social order and those oppressed by it. It is simply a statement that the beneficiaries wish to retain (and expand) their benefit. Thus, you should expect nothing less than continued resistance by those born into oppression.
"Is there no sphere left, public or private, where feeding the rabid beast of majoritarianism is not deemed the highest possible virtue?"
I love you for this, Kip. I just needed to let you know that.
.
Where's James Madison now, huh?
It is highly doubtful, e.g., that if you'd been born into a Bombay slum you'd have arrived at your present philosophy.
It's also highly doubtful that, if you ever make something of yourself, that you'll be all in favor of having lazy cretins come and take all your money and redistribute it to other lazy cretins as well.
Swings both ways, my dear man.