[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Definitely with you here, but with some caveats. It's not nearly so prevalent today, but historically there are plenty of examples of groups unfairly discriminated against so widely that there really wasn't any alternative open to them, in terms of businesses to patronize.

Racist and sexist laws existed because there was a lot of racist and sexist people with power. Women and black people didn't get the law changed by overpowering the government. The law changed because the majority could no longer "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" and also believe that slave ownership and denial of women's voting rights are ok. Both beliefs could not simultaneously be correct, so one of them had to go.

My point is that it isn't good laws that result in a good society, rather it's a good society that results in good laws.

How do you feel about, for instance, a black or latino family looking to buy a house and having real estate agents (who may live in these neighborhoors and have a vested interest) turning them out to keep the neighborhoods from having minorities? Not even discussing private sales, or agency policies. Granted, it may not be advisable to move into one of those neighborhoods to begin with, but this is relatively common. There are only so many agents that can represent one house.

Well I'm against that behavior, and I'd spread the word if I knew of agents who acted this way. Technology has made this practice less possible because the customer can see a list of houses on the internet and visit the houses for sale. At 6% commission, real estate agents are a dying profession.

Also, I suspect the reverse is more common, that a Korean gets a Korean real estate agent, and asks where the good Korean neighborhoods are. I'm all for the right of the Korean to pursue a neighborhood they feel most comfortable in.

Finally, people tend to live in the neighborhoods they can afford. OJ lived in a "white" community because that's where he felt comfortable, and he could afford it.

Funny that we tend to see a lot of the former in most "bargaining" type transactions. Women, statistically, pay more for cars off dealer lots, because they're targeted and profiled. This is a voluntary transaction on both sides, but even if it's not an institutional problem, it's definitely systematic and good luck finding a dealer that isn't doing this.

Women are the kinder gender. They seek harmony more often and have more humility. Men are competitive, seek to win, and are less compassionate. The obvious result is that women tend to avoid conflict, and men are more likely to engage in conflict. Bargaining is the process of conflict resolution. Exceptions to these generalities exist, and that's why women who are competitive, confrontational, and aggressive are seen by some as "b*tches". There are men who avoid conflict, are not driven to win, and are kinder who are seen by some as "pansies".

My wife avoids answering the door because she gives into the pressure of salesmen. She gave $20 to someone at the door because it was worth $20 to her to avoid the conflict. I talked with a guy for 15 minutes and at the end, didn't buy his $40 citrus cleaner and he stormed off angry.

To be clear, there are many instances where my willingness to engage in conflict was much worse than accommodating someone. There is a healthy balance of standing your ground, and compassionately accommodating others. My wife brings this balance to my life, and I keep her from being taken advantage of.

I agree that cars should be priced like computers; the price is as listed, and doesn't vary person to person. Laws protecting the dealership model should not exist.