"Give Me A Break!" -- John Stossel is a Massive Tool

I doubt I've seen an episode of 20/20 since the 1990s, but I just happened to catch it tonight while flipping channels.

I forgot what a massive tool John Stossel is.

A constant apologist for big business, Stossel's piece tonight is essentially presented the view that a business owner should be able to hire/fire anyone they want for any reason, since it's "their money." This particular report was about age discrimination laws, but following this thread, a company should be allowed in Stossel's world to not hire old people, gay people, minorities, women, non-christians, etc., because it's "their business." I find it amazing that such a premise should be presented on a national news magazine on a network that itself has taken its share of heat for offering insurance benefits to same-sex couples.

Stossel is a self-confessed libertarian, which is fine in and of itself, although he rarely acknowledges this on air. His data and sources almost always come from "biased" sources, with a lot of libertarian think-tanks involved. Now, I know this is technically an "opinion" pieces, and that there are different standards for "opinion" vs. "news," but I just find it somewhat weird that they offer these commentaries in such a one sided manner.

Ah well... just venting.

I'm a moderate libertarian. Basically, that since we pay the government quite a bit, it has a responsibility to us, and some things are more efficient done with a central agency. (The park service, health care, and such come to mind). But, I firmly believe any moral rules should simply not exist.

However, I'm of a decidedly split opinion about the hiring regulations. It is indeed their money, and their business. (And if someone had discriminatory hiring policies, I wouldn't go there.) But I think some labor laws pertaining to that should exist. But they're a pain to enforce.

SommerMatt wrote:

This particular report was about age discrimination laws, but following this thread, a company should be allowed in Stossel's world to not hire old people, gay people, minorities, women, non-christians, etc., because it's "their business." I find it amazing that such a premise should be presented on a national news magazine on a network that itself has taken its share of heat for offering insurance benefits to same-sex couples.

Why? Holding a personal or corporate view (such as ABC offering insurance benefits to same-sex couples) is separate from advocating everyone be legally mandated to follow said view. It is possible to state that something is the Right Way without trying to make it the Only Way.

Note: Stossel's view is not a view I share.

Kannon wrote:

I'm a moderate libertarian. Basically, that since we pay the government quite a bit, it has a responsibility to us, and some things are more efficient done with a central agency. (The park service, health care, and such come to mind). But, I firmly believe any moral rules should simply not exist.

However, I'm of a decidedly split opinion about the hiring regulations. It is indeed their money, and their business. (And if someone had discriminatory hiring policies, I wouldn't go there.) But I think some labor laws pertaining to that should exist. But they're a pain to enforce.

I don't know it takes my state government 1 month and a half to issue me a renewal on my drivers liscense... even if I lose it and just order a replacement. My bank can have me a new bank card within 5 business days. My State road department recently repaved a section of road, then dug it up a week later when they were doing scheduled upgrades to that stretch of highway and then had to repave it yet again when they were finished. The government is the model of anti-efficiency because they don't care if they spend too much money, it's not likely to affect their pay scale.

SommerMatt wrote:

A constant apologist for big business, Stossel's piece tonight is essentially presented the view that a business owner should be able to hire/fire anyone they want for any reason, since it's "their money."

Keep in mind that most businesses aren't "big business". If you had a three employee roofing service, would you want the government to tell you one must be elderly, and one pregnant? There's a reason many workplace laws (e.g. FMLA) don't apply to small businesses. They have to be picky about who they work with, or they go out of business.

I don't know it takes my state government 1 month and a half to issue me a renewal on my drivers liscense... even if I lose it and just order a replacement.

Maryland is a blue state with taxes that make local Republicans complain. For the last 15 years, I can drive five minutes to the local DMV office and get my renewal in 10 minutes. And we have highways that are the envy of neighboring states.

It *can* be done right. Maybe all this makes me less sensitive to service problems in other areas, but here, government pays attention to spending. Well, except the last time the Republicans were in, they ran up the state deficit just like Bush does.

SommerMatt wrote:

This particular report was about age discrimination laws, but following this thread, a company should be allowed in Stossel's world to not hire old people, gay people, minorities, women, non-christians, etc., because it's "their business." I find it amazing that such a premise should be presented on a national news magazine on a network that itself has taken its share of heat for offering insurance benefits to same-sex couples.

Since you don't like his opinion that businesses shouldn't be forced to hire people that they don't want, what's your stance on the issue?

I agree with him though. If I owned a business I should be able to hire who I want to and who I don't want to. Then again if I owned a business I believe I should be able to serve what customers I want to and who I don't want to also.

SommerMatt wrote:

I doubt I've seen an episode of 20/20 since the 1990s, but I just happened to catch it tonight while flipping channels.

I forgot what a massive tool John Stossel is.

A constant apologist for big business, Stossel's piece tonight is essentially presented the view that a business owner should be able to hire/fire anyone they want for any reason, since it's "their money." This particular report was about age discrimination laws, but following this thread, a company should be allowed in Stossel's world to not hire old people, gay people, minorities, women, non-christians, etc., because it's "their business." I find it amazing that such a premise should be presented on a national news magazine on a network that itself has taken its share of heat for offering insurance benefits to same-sex couples.

Stossel is a self-confessed libertarian, which is fine in and of itself, although he rarely acknowledges this on air. His data and sources almost always come from "biased" sources, with a lot of libertarian think-tanks involved. Now, I know this is technically an "opinion" pieces, and that there are different standards for "opinion" vs. "news," but I just find it somewhat weird that they offer these commentaries in such a one sided manner.

Ah well... just venting.

Why do you find it so offensive that a differing view point would be aired on a news magazine show? Would you hold this view if it was an opinion piece on nationalized healthcare? I'm betting no.

I didn't see the piece but I'm ok with at will states.

There are some things that are tough to justify in all this.

I support business and the free market, but I no longer believe that business can putz around without having disproportionate effects on disassociated structures. So while I recognise that some businesses already descriminate for a variety of reasons ( Waiters can't have facial growths, lingerie salespeople can't be creepy looking old men, etc... ), I think we have to fight against that as best as possible. Were we in a world where competition was absolute and jobs could be replaced quickly and efficiently, I'd probably be more supportive of the libertarian nature of hiring and firing... but most libertarians thing life is like the stock market... when it's more like plate tectonics. The majesty of the market is not worth letting people starve between jobs.

That being said, Stossel is a tool.

Robear wrote:
I don't know it takes my state government 1 month and a half to issue me a renewal on my drivers liscense... even if I lose it and just order a replacement.

Maryland is a blue state with taxes that make local Republicans complain. For the last 15 years, I can drive five minutes to the local DMV office and get my renewal in 10 minutes. And we have highways that are the envy of neighboring states.

It *can* be done right. Maybe all this makes me less sensitive to service problems in other areas, but here, government pays attention to spending. Well, except the last time the Republicans were in, they ran up the state deficit just like Bush does.

I live in Minnesota, you don't get much bluer than that... Minnesota was the only state to not vote for Reagan (DC is not a state). The Democratic party (along with 6 Republicans who appear to be not getting endorsed by the Republican party, much less reelected) just pushed through changes that have now added 2 new sales taxes here in the city of Minneapolis (one county tax and another mutli county "Transit Improvement Tax"). Oh and I have to get my DL renewed every 4 years then they complain that there is a backlog of DL (hence the wait)... and then we go and spend a freaking half millioin dollars on 10 public drinking fountains (and no they don't dispense aged scotch, just regular smelly and funky tasting city tap water)

A constant apologist for big business

I wasn't aware that "big business" needed apologists. You know, what's with the United States owing its current economic (and thus military,) supremacy to its history of supporting the corporate model.

I also happen to think that businesses should be able to hire and fire whomever they like. Am I a "massive tool"? You're overreacting just a bit.

Ulairi wrote:

why do you find it so offensive that a differing view point would be aired on a news magazine show? Would you hold this view if it was an opinion piece on nationalized healthcare? I'm betting no.

I didn't see the piece but I'm ok with at will states.

I don't object to his opinion. I object to the veneer of "investigative news" that his reports carry. Much like other politically biased talk radio programs, Stossel presents his opinion as "fact" using data that supports his position, no matter how shaky (while ignoring any data that doesn't support his stance). You can expect such things from sources with a known bias, but I'm just constantly surprised that a major network news magazine program presents his biased pieces without requiring any kind of factual balance OR actually admitting the bias.

In this piece, for example, calls age discrimination laws "dumb laws," although he has no actual facts to back up that these laws actually affect most businesses... just a few anecdotal stories, and quotes from a libertarian think-tank saying that a business should be able to hire and fire whomever they want, even if they only want to hire people of a certain ethnicity. The fact that he seems to be stating a very controversial point while couching it in the less polarizing "age-ism" argument is simply strange. Can you imagine if he ran a piece about "why can't landlords refuse to rent to black people? don't they OWN the property?" It's essentially the same argument.

And it's not just this piece, either. Nearly everything he's ever written follows the exact same formula.

Morrolan wrote:
A constant apologist for big business

I wasn't aware that "big business" needed apologists. You know, what's with the United States owing its current economic (and thus military,) supremacy to its history of supporting the corporate model

Is this sarcasm? I can only read it as such, seeing as the dollar is getting killed by the Euro (and the mexican PESO is even gaining ground).

weswilson wrote:

So while I recognise that some businesses already descriminate for a variety of reasons ( Waiters can't have facial growths, lingerie salespeople can't be creepy looking old men, etc... ), I think we have to fight against that as best as possible.

The best way to fight against this is for people to put their money where their mouths are by supporting businesses that choose to hire employees that most people consider less than desirable for certain jobs: fat & hairy strippers, stuttering phone personnel, weak movers, et cetera.

So basically people have to start paying to see this:
IMAGE(http://www-cgi.cnn.com/US/9512/hooters_eeoc/male_hooters_waiter.jpg)

over of this:
IMAGE(http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/5277/hootersgirlashleygs8.jpg)

That HOOTERS thing was one of the bits of anecdotal evidence used in the piece I was referring to in the OP.

Sure, you look at that ad campaign Hooters put out with the fat hairy guy, and it makes perfect sense that "businesses should be able to hire (and deny) whomever they want." My distaste for this kind of thing, though, is simply that it refuses to acknowledge what a "slippery slope" this line of reasoning could lead to. So, Hooters has a right to deny jobs to men. Do they have a right to deny jobs to black women? Hispanic women? Women with less than acceptable bra sizes? Jewish women? And if YES, then why can't ANY employer do likewise?

I suppose some people are going to agree with that line of thinking, and to those people I suppose I'll just have to tip my hat and walk away. We don't live in the same world.

I consider myself to be what I call a "social libertarian." Basically meaning that I believe in most libertarian ways of thinking but I don't subscribe to the Cato way of thinking that anything and everything should be left to the free markets because free markets will equalize everything. That just isn't true. I do have a problem with businesses turning away people for jobs purely because of colour of skin or ethnicity but at the same time, I also understand that some businesses (like Hooters) do have certain prerequisites that must be met for them to effectively do business and those must be respected somehow.

I am generally against such things as Affirmative Action because most demonstrations of it that I've witnessed involve less qualified people getting jobs simply because they're of a group that must be hired in a certain amount. When trying to fill a position, the most qualified person should get it and no other traits should override that. We have a very large problem with that in the Canadian government regarding language. I am not bilingual and have never been able to get a government job because of it but a couple of times when I've had to call with tax inquiries, I've ended up speaking to predominantly French individuals who can barely speak a word of English but who got their jobs because of "equality targets." As a business owner, I do believe I should be able to hire who I want but if I were a racist, I shouldn't be allowed to refuse people just because of that. I shouldn't be forced to hire someone less qualified because of race, sex or another trait but I also shouldn't be allowed to turn away someone obviously qualified just because I don't like the colour of their skin.

SommerMatt wrote:

Sure, you look at that ad campaign Hooters put out with the fat hairy guy, and it makes perfect sense that "businesses should be able to hire (and deny) whomever they want." My distaste for this kind of thing, though, is simply that it refuses to acknowledge what a "slippery slope" this line of reasoning could lead to. So, Hooters has a right to deny jobs to men. Do they have a right to deny jobs to black women? Hispanic women? Women with less than acceptable bra sizes? Jewish women? And if YES, then why can't ANY employer do likewise?

Of course, there's a reason that "slippery slope" is considered a classic logical fallacy, because it's not sound reasoning.

Your argument acts as if people (and the law) are incapable of making a distinction between "discriminating" on reasonable grounds (not hiring guys for the job of big booby girls that carry hot wings), and "discriminating" on purely hostile ones. Which is pretty much the crux of any fallacious "slippery slope" argument - if we allow this thing, then all of this other stuff can happen, because we'll be completely unable to distinguish between what's OK to allow and what's not (even though, apparently, we can make the distinction in our heads now just fine, otherwise we wouldn't be capable of putting forth this argument).

Putting forth some basic ground rules that businesses need to follow, and allowing businesses to make the choices that are right for their activities, are not mutually exclusive. There is no "slippery slope".

SommerMatt wrote:

Sure, you look at that ad campaign Hooters put out with the fat hairy guy, and it makes perfect sense that "businesses should be able to hire (and deny) whomever they want." My distaste for this kind of thing, though, is simply that it refuses to acknowledge what a "slippery slope" this line of reasoning could lead to. So, Hooters has a right to deny jobs to men. Do they have a right to deny jobs to black women? Hispanic women? Women with less than acceptable bra sizes? Jewish women? And if YES, then why can't ANY employer do likewise?

I suppose some people are going to agree with that line of thinking, and to those people I suppose I'll just have to tip my hat and walk away. We don't live in the same world.

Libertarians (in general) do not disagree with you about the wrongness of discriminatory hiring. What we disagree with is using force to "fix" the problem - you are substituting a far worse problem for a fairly minor one. As libertarians, we believe that this issue is not something that government can or should fix, nor is it one of the federal government's constitutional powers (aside from ensuring that rights are not infringed based on race, 15th amendment). As soon as the idiot racist violates someone else's basic rights, then the government can and should be involved.

The best way to fight against this is for people to put their money where their mouths are by supporting businesses that choose to hire employees that most people consider less than desirable for certain jobs: fat & hairy strippers, stuttering phone personnel, weak movers, et cetera.

You are (possibly deliberately) mis-stating the point. The issue centers on whether employers should be able to discriminate based on otherwise qualified candidates. For example, suppose a mover opens an office in a predominantly black neighborhood. They proceed to only employee white employees, despite the availability of qualified blacks. Their explanation is that they prefer to hire whites. (Note that I'm deliberately not picking a neutral scenario.)

That's the kind of issue we dealt with in the 60's and before, under the name of "separate but equal". Do you recommend we step back to enshrining that privilege in law? Should there be laws preventing discrimination in hiring, or not? Also, if this is okay for private companies, what should the standard be for government employees?

It's not like this is a new issue, it's been decided for decades. I'm just curious as to whether you *really* disagree with it.

SommerMatt wrote:

That HOOTERS thing was one of the bits of anecdotal evidence used in the piece I was referring to in the OP.

Well, do you agree that they should be able to choose to hire who they want or should government force them to hire men and unattractive women?

Robear wrote:

You are (possibly deliberately) mis-stating the point. The issue centers on whether employers should be able to discriminate based on otherwise qualified candidates. For example, suppose a mover opens an office in a predominantly black neighborhood. They proceed to only employee white employees, despite the availability of qualified blacks. Their explanation is that they prefer to hire whites. (Note that I'm deliberately not picking a neutral scenario.)

How is that any different from the lack of white on-air personalities on BET? As for the movers, the people in the neighborhood are free to refuse to do business with the movers.

Robear wrote:

That's the kind of issue we dealt with in the 60's and before, under the name of "separate but equal". Do you recommend we step back to enshrining that privilege in law?

I think you're forgetting that it was about public institutions, not private businesses.

Robear wrote:

Should there be laws preventing discrimination in hiring, or not? Also, if this is okay for private companies, what should the standard be for government employees?

Private companies should be allowed to hire whomever they want while government agencies should be restricted due to the fact that they operate on public funds.

Robear wrote:

It's not like this is a new issue, it's been decided for decades. I'm just curious as to whether you *really* disagree with it.

The Hooters cases have shown us that it's okay for businesses to discriminate as long as they have a good reason.

As soon as you incorporate and are looking for the government's protections of your profits, then yes you are subject to whatever laws the government sets forth upon you.

The Hooters cases have shown us that it's okay for businesses to discriminate as long as they have a good reason.

None of the examples cited were a "good reason", unlike the Hooters situation.

Because the majority of jobs in this country are not publicly funded, we can't risk unlimited powers of discrimination because that could result in the creation of an artificially created underclass. Which, in fact, it did in the past. Even private companies have public responsibilities to society. When Americans can treat others differently in material ways - ways that affect their livelihoods, for example - that becomes something that affects all of us.

Should GM, with it's terrible debt, be allowed to say "We're going to fire all union members"? How about Hispanics? Where does the individual right end, and the societal responsibility begin.

Ultimately, your position is "Companies can discriminate without regard to qualifications, or even social/legal equality". How can you justify whites-only restaurants, for example? I don't see it.

Robear wrote:
The Hooters cases have shown us that it's okay for businesses to discriminate as long as they have a good reason.

None of the examples cited were a "good reason", unlike the Hooters situation.

Because the majority of jobs in this country are not publicly funded, we can't risk unlimited powers of discrimination because that could result in the creation of an artificially created underclass. Which, in fact, it did in the past. Even private companies have public responsibilities to society. When Americans can treat others differently in material ways - ways that affect their livelihoods, for example - that becomes something that affects all of us.

Should GM, with it's terrible debt, be allowed to say "We're going to fire all union members"? How about Hispanics? Where does the individual right end, and the societal responsibility begin.

Ultimately, your position is "Companies can discriminate without regard to qualifications, or even social/legal equality". How can you justify whites-only restaurants, for example? I don't see it.

I think GM should be able to deunionize itself.

Robear wrote:

When Americans can treat others differently in material ways - ways that affect their livelihoods, for example - that becomes something that affects all of us.

Doesn't it also affect all of us when government forces business owners to hire employees that they may not want for whatever reason?

Robear wrote:

Should GM, with it's terrible debt, be allowed to say "We're going to fire all union members"? How about Hispanics? Where does the individual right end, and the societal responsibility begin.

Sure; but they wouldn't because the public outcry would make it a death sentence for the company. If society doesn't care enough to enforce the responsibility on its own then it must not be much of a responsibility.

Robear wrote:

Ultimately, your position is "Companies can discriminate without regard to qualifications, or even social/legal equality".

It's their business, why shouldn't they be allowed to operate it as they see fit?

Robear wrote:

How can you justify whites-only restaurants, for example? I don't see it.

The Hooters argument was that the waitresses were an integral part of the restaurant's theme and thus they should be considered entertainers and not servers. So theoretically one could start a whites only restaurant if their theme supported it.

*Legion* wrote:

Putting forth some basic ground rules that businesses need to follow, and allowing businesses to make the choices that are right for their activities, are not mutually exclusive. There is no "slippery slope".

Aren't anti-discrimination laws "basic ground rules"? This has nothing to do with "affirmative action" or quotas... these sorts of laws just basically say "if someone is qualified, they should have a chance to be hired" and "if people are meeting the job requirements, they can't be fired because they're too old/too black/too gay, etc."

Obviously companies (and landlords) play around with this and get around it all the time anyway.

Saying that this is "flawed logic" seems kind of strange to me, since it took an entire social movement AND governmental interaction to try and "fix" these discriminatory practices in the first place. Is your position that these laws aren't necessary any longer? That we've somehow evolved beyond them? Link to Wikipedia all you want, I just don't see how repealing any of these laws wouldn't lead to a basic shift in our society.

Aetius wrote:

As libertarians, we believe that this issue is not something that government can or should fix, nor is it one of the federal government's constitutional powers (aside from ensuring that rights are not infringed based on race, 15th amendment). As soon as the idiot racist violates someone else's basic rights, then the government can and should be involved.

But that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws DO. IF someone has their rights violated, they have a recourse. The government isn't saying "you have to hire x number of Asians."

CannibalCrowley wrote:

So theoretically one could start a whites only restaurant if their theme supported it.

I take it you don't see anything wrong with that? I do. Hence our differing viewpoints.

SommerMatt wrote:

Saying that this is "flawed logic" seems kind of strange to me, since it took an entire social movement AND governmental interaction to try and "fix" these discriminatory practices in the first place. Is your position that these laws aren't necessary any longer? That we've somehow evolved beyond them? Link to Wikipedia all you want, I just don't see how repealing any of these laws wouldn't lead to a basic shift in our society.

You are confusing public and private. The laws that were changed dealt with public places, government offices, and government hiring. Those things can and should have been changed, and they were. Unfortunately, things then went a lot further - beyond the Constitution.

Aetius wrote:

As libertarians, we believe that this issue is not something that government can or should fix, nor is it one of the federal government's constitutional powers (aside from ensuring that rights are not infringed based on race, 15th amendment). As soon as the idiot racist violates someone else's basic rights, then the government can and should be involved.

But that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws DO. IF someone has their rights violated, they have a recourse. The government isn't saying "you have to hire x number of Asians."

There is no right to work, especially at a particular place. There is no right to eat at a particular restaurant. The government can and will use force to ensure that you are not discriminating, and in some cases the laws explicitly do, in fact, state that affirmative action must be taken (See Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973). There are many affirmative action regulations across many states, and there a number of legal actions surrounding those regulations. Currently, the government does, in many ways, say "you have to hire x number of Asians".

Note that I separate government and private factors here. The government can and should make sure that it's hiring practices for all contracts and positions are as fair as possible - and this is an area where there is rampant corruption at present. If it is the will of the people that there be equal opportunity, then the government should reflect that. But the private sector is just that, private.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

So theoretically one could start a whites only restaurant if their theme supported it.

I take it you don't see anything wrong with that? I do. Hence our differing viewpoints.

Of course it's wrong, and such places certainly exist today. But you automatically default to "there ought to be a law". The question is whether or not the use of physical force by the government is the correct tool for dealing with the problem. That's what you are implying when you say that the government should make a law against discrimination. If they were to resist the courts, the police would come. If they resist the police ... well, you know how that tends to turn out.

Regardless of your particular political leaning, I think we can all agree with the thread title that John Stossel is indeed a massive tool.

Rob Corddry used to do a recurring Stossel parody on The Daily Show called, "Come On!". Here's one in which he denies the necessity of the sun.

Crouton wrote:

Rob Corddry used to do a recurring Stossel parody on The Daily Show called, "Come On!". Here's one in which he denies the necessity of the sun.

Awesome. I loved that guy.

It's their business, why shouldn't they be allowed to operate it as they see fit?

Because any business has more than a responsibility to the bottom line - it has a place in society and business that requires a minimal avoidance of abusive behavior. This is why we regulate the free market in many areas, like worker's health and safety, and, yes, discrimination.

I believe this kind of regulation is necessary for the success of the country, socially. Complete freedom in anything that involves both self-interest and other people leads inevitably to the abuse of one set of people by another, more successful set. And that inequity is dangerous to the society they are in.

The problem with your view is that it's fine in the abstract, but in the concrete, it's segregation, at best. We know where that goes. America *was* based on the idea you propose - back after the Founding when blacks had no votes, then something like 1/3 of a vote. That's the practical expression of your ideas in America, and we got past it. Our system has flaws, yes, but it's better than what came before.

SommerMatt wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

So theoretically one could start a whites only restaurant if their theme supported it.

I take it you don't see anything wrong with that? I do. Hence our differing viewpoints.

So you're against the hiring practices of Hooters, BET, Contours, et cetera?