You usually seem fairly pro-freedom in your political posts, so your comparison of abercrombie-applying muslims and non-RU486-dispensing pharmacists was sort of odd.
The fundamental issue in both cases is whether you and I should be free to start businesses with whatever hiring or operating policies that we want. If I want to start a clothing store and not hire people who wear hats then why should anyone be able to tell me not to? Similarly if I want to start a pharmacy which does not dispense RU-486 then why should anyone be able to force me to dispense stuff that I don't want to? Both issues are about our rights to do with our property what we wish as long as we're not messing with anyone else. Starting a pharmacy which doesn't have RU486 isn't harming anyone, it's just not helping them.
Same thing with doctors and abortions. If I want to start offering some medical services, why should you have the right to force me to perform services that I don't want to perform? It's not up to you to decide what my job should entail. Free people should be able to decide for themselves what services their businesses will offer.
i am pretty pro-freedom. if a pharmacist who works for himself and has no ties to the government doesn't want to dispense whatever he doesn't want to dispense, then that should be up to him. perhaps with the caveat that he not be able to call himself a pharmacist, but some other term indicating his inability to help where it comes to birth control/RU486. this works in theory, but in states like kansas, where most of the population is, what, born-again christian, i feel that the government has an obligation to ensure that birth control is at least available everywhere that gets government money. (clinics, research hospitals, etc).
however, if the person who OWNS the pharmacy wants his workers to dispense RU486 and other birth control, and he has a very religious worker who refuses to do so, he should be able to fire this worker. the "religious freedom" clause should not protect someone who refuses to do their job.
also, not all doctors perform abortions: most don't (pediatrics, orthopedics, oncology, basically everything but ob/gyn). it's fine for doctors to choose their specialty and it's very easy for that specialty to disinclude abortions.
If there was no tipping at restaurants we'd end up paying about the same amount of $ when eating out, but our service would be worse.
Restaurant owners are able to keep their labor costs low because waiters know they'll get lots of tips. If no one tipped, restaurants would have to pay their waiters more and they would then raise the price of their food to compensate. However since the waiter's wage is no longer directly tied to how they treat each customer, the chance that you'll get bad service would increase.
When you don't tip, you are taking advantage of the subsidized low cost of food (subsidized by other tippers) without chipping in to support the system that gives you such cheap food. You are the classic economic "free rider."
P.S. it would be nice to be able to post directly on your journal.
i would prefer a negative incentive program. where the waiters are paid a decent wage, and food prices are generally higher, but bad service results in a free meal that comes out of the waiter's pay.
The fundamental issue in both cases is whether you and I should be free to start businesses with whatever hiring or operating policies that we want. If I want to start a clothing store and not hire people who wear hats then why should anyone be able to tell me not to? Similarly if I want to start a pharmacy which does not dispense RU-486 then why should anyone be able to force me to dispense stuff that I don't want to? Both issues are about our rights to do with our property what we wish as long as we're not messing with anyone else. Starting a pharmacy which doesn't have RU486 isn't harming anyone, it's just not helping them.
Same thing with doctors and abortions. If I want to start offering some medical services, why should you have the right to force me to perform services that I don't want to perform? It's not up to you to decide what my job should entail. Free people should be able to decide for themselves what services their businesses will offer.
Reply
however, if the person who OWNS the pharmacy wants his workers to dispense RU486 and other birth control, and he has a very religious worker who refuses to do so, he should be able to fire this worker. the "religious freedom" clause should not protect someone who refuses to do their job.
also, not all doctors perform abortions: most don't (pediatrics, orthopedics, oncology, basically everything but ob/gyn). it's fine for doctors to choose their specialty and it's very easy for that specialty to disinclude abortions.
Reply
If there was no tipping at restaurants we'd end up paying about the same amount of $ when eating out, but our service would be worse.
Restaurant owners are able to keep their labor costs low because waiters know they'll get lots of tips. If no one tipped, restaurants would have to pay their waiters more and they would then raise the price of their food to compensate. However since the waiter's wage is no longer directly tied to how they treat each customer, the chance that you'll get bad service would increase.
When you don't tip, you are taking advantage of the subsidized low cost of food (subsidized by other tippers) without chipping in to support the system that gives you such cheap food. You are the classic economic "free rider."
P.S. it would be nice to be able to post directly on your journal.
Reply
i would prefer a negative incentive program. where the waiters are paid a decent wage, and food prices are generally higher, but bad service results in a free meal that comes out of the waiter's pay.
Reply
Leave a comment