I think he's suggesting that they could be accused of it. Startups are disproportionately started by men, most of whom are white or Asian. Paul Graham says not to blame on malice what you can attribute to math, but other people might not see it that way.

"I'm playing devil's advocate far further than intended for sure, but the laws regarding employment, although bureaucratic are there for very good reasons."

What is that reason?

I'll take a stab at this. I recently read one of Milton Friedman's books, and I liked it a lot. His pursuit of freedom is admirable, and something that I can understand. He even suggests that freedom is more important than using government power to attempt to stop racism, for instance by letting people choose not to hire black people (as an example).

That got me to thinking though. While I'm attracted to the sentiment of freedom above all else, what I think is missing in his equation is that communities tend to be sort of self-reinforcing. It would be very difficult, if it were accepted by others to not hire black people, to be the first one to do so. Now, laws against that kind of discrimination don't change the way people feel, nor make their racist sentiments go away overnight. However, they do drive those thoughts underground, and break the cycle of "we've always done it that way" by making it no longer acceptable. And with time, that improves the climate and makes it easier for attitudes to change.

At least that's one thought that came to mind. I really admire Friedman's purity of thought, but think that perhaps it's a bit naive. It would certainly be an interesting subject to discuss in person with a person of that libertarian mindset.

Just imagine the level of job candidates you could be selecting amongst if you were the only one hiring from a population as big as the black community. In any competitive field, employers are fairly limited in how 'racist' they can be in their hiring practices without setting themselves up for a fall.

Sure, but there are a lot of fields that aren't really that competitive (where you simply hire cheap laborers who basically work about the same), and where the pressure to conform may be higher than the pressure to find an employee that is 2% better than the next guy.

Even then, widespread aversion to hiring from one of two equally productive groups creates a big incentive to break the mold. And that incentive will only keep increasing as long as no one steps out. In the limit case, you pretty much have access to an 'unlimited' pool of free labor. This line of reasoning does presuppose a reasonably free country, though.

I'm such a person. I haven't read Friedman, but I'll be happy to ramble on about Rothbard for as long you'd like :-)

Human Rights trump Economics.

That's what our society has decided, therefore employment laws, while imperfect, have good reason.

For reference, see 19th century factory conditions.

Economics drives human rights. For reference, see the conditions of the 19th century farms people fled to go work in those factories.

See also: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118134633403829656.html?mod=...

And I don't understand what you mean about laws being proof that people feel this way. I assume that the proof that people feel a certain way is that they act that way. For example, if I think being a coal miner is too risky, I won't be a coal miner; if I think the rewards are fair compensation, I will be one. Why do you need a law to deprive me of my freedom to make those decisions?

I don't understand why you keep posting comments that begin with "I don't understand", and then proceed to make an argument about the comment that you profess not to understand.

I've found that sometimes, people refuse to say exactly what they mean because it's so absurd. So they write vague, pleasant nonsense about how "human rights trump economics." What is that supposed to mean? Economics is the study of what people want and how they get it -- how can it be 'trumped' by one set of things people want. It's a malformed argument. I wondered if the commenter would explain exactly what he was trying to say.

Want to know what else those conditions led to? death, disease, revolution, communism, fascism and war.

>For example, if I think being a coal miner is too risky, I won't be a coal miner.

Unless of course you're not in the position to make that choice. You are speaking from a position of privilege and assume all share that privilege. It leads to only a half understanding of why we've instituted the systems we have.

>Why do you need a law to deprive me of my freedom to make those decisions?

Wow, that's a warped view of freedom. Too many Ayn Rand books to be sure. If you were right in your theory, the nation you live in (assuming you're American) wouldn't exist right now. Think about that a little.

Shit. I thought death, disease, revolution, communism (read Acts), fascism (which was an attempt to revive Rome) and war all predated the Industrial Revolution. In fact, the actual research I've read (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html) demonstrates clearly that those are declining as we industrialize. But I'm sure you meant to cite your own source. I'm waiting.

" You are speaking from a position of privilege and assume all share that privilege."

Pleasant nonsense. Why should my status change the validity of my arguments? I have an idea -- let's ask a black high school dropout (http://www.tsowell.com/) if he agrees with me! Then let's decide that an individual's 'privilege', whatever that means, isn't as important as making a reasonable argument backed by data.

"If you were right in your theory, the nation you live in (assuming you're American) wouldn't exist right now."

If I were right in my theory that depriving people of freedom in order to force them to make decisions they're going to make anyway (at best!) is a bad idea? I don't see how my rightness would affect American politics. Do you mean that if more people agreed with me, the world would be different? Are you confusing my perscriptions and historical descriptions? Please clarify.

So you think that seed and VC firms should be bound by the same laws?

If not, why the distinction?

Do I think we should expect seed and venture companies not be racist when deciding on how to hand out money? Of course.

I'm not sure we need laws that commit them to be though for the simple fact that it would be very hard to actually enforce those laws.

Employers are a completely different situation, and thus are bound to a different set of expectations.