Steve Philips Sexual Harassment Fnord

This story has an important evil fnord. Steve Philips was a baseball analyst at ESPN. He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with someone else who worked for ESPN. He was fired. His career is probably ruined and he will be unable to find another good job.

There are plenty of ex-baseball players looking to work for ESPN. If one analyst is unfairly fired, it's easily to find a replacement. It makes practically no difference if someone is the world's best analyst, or a barely qualified loser. If you're interested in baseball, you'll probably watch whether the analyst is interesting or incompetent.

Every mainstream media personality is an interchangeable cog in the machinery of the State. If a celebrity or politician breaks the rules, then it's very easy to unfairly fire him and ruin his career. The mainstream media has a monopoly. If you're discredited and blacklisted, then it's practically impossible to find a new job. It's almost like the "Don't hire him! He's a Communist!" purges in the 50s and 60s, except it's no longer that explicit. Steve Philips wasn't explicitly blacklisted, but it'll be very hard for him to find another job.

Sexual harassment is a State-created crime. Sexual harassment cannot occur in a really free market. I noticed other blogs debating this issue and running around in the circular reasoning of their pro-State brainwashing.

In order to understand "Sexual harassment is a State-created crime!", you must first realize "Prostitution is not a crime!" "Prostitution is illegal!" is a variant of "People don't own their own bodies!" With a State violence monopoly, there's no way to prevent two consenting adults from doing whatever they want in private.

A pro-State troll says "But prostitution is associated with violent crime!" That occurs because prostitution is illegal. If a prostitute has a disagreement with her client or headhunter/pimp, then she cannot seek justice in a corrupt State court. This leads to violent crime. If prostitution were not illegal, then it would not be profitable to kidnap people and force them to work as prostitutes. The State police monopoly is barred from protecting prostitutes.

Prostitution is not a crime. If I'm the 100% owner of a business, and I decide to hire you, it isn't immoral for me to say "and you're also required to have a sexual relationship with me". If you don't like it, go work somewhere else. In a really free market, if I make stupid business decisions, then I will lose out to competitors.

If I really wanted a prostitute, it'd probably be a wiser decision to hire the best possible employee in my business, and hire a prostitute separately. The State has declared prostitution illegal. Therefore, people workaround this requirement by hiring a woman and then adding extra demands.

The middle manager in a corporation has a different set of incentives. Via the Principal-Agent problem, the middle manager controls resources that he doesn't own. Therefore, the incentive is for him to line his own pockets at the expense of the true owners. If a middle manager hires a woman because he's having sex with her, then the corporation is disadvantaged. The middle manager isn't paying the cost himself.

There are double standards here. If a manager hires his idiot brother-in-law, that's not illegal. If a manager hires an unqualified loser so he looks good in comparison, that's not illegal. If you have an explicit or implicit prostitution agreement, that's illegal. It's legal for a woman to marry a millionaire, but it's illegal for her to work as a prostitute.

A pro-State troll says "In a really free market, what happens if all employers demand that women have sex with them in exchange for employment?" In that case, some women would get together and start their own competing businesses.

In the present, ESPN has a State-backed monopoly. If men working at ESPN require subordinates to have sex with them, then "having sex with your boss" becomes a requirement for women working at a mainstream media corporation. Due to State restriction of the market, a group that's unfairly discriminated against can't form their own competing business.

The laws regarding sexual harassment were not passed directly via Congress. The laws were made via a series of court decisions. "If you do X, then you can get sued for sexual harassment. If you do Y, then you can't get sued." Since "getting sued" is something a corporate manager fears, they go overboard when there's suspicion of misconduct.

If ESPN didn't fire Steve Philips, then they would be at greater risk for a sexual harassment lawsuit in the future. Now, executives at ESPN can say "We fired Steve Philips. Therefore, we handle sexual harassment properly." How can I know that the woman didn't have sex with Steve Philips, knowing she could sue him later?

As occurred with me, a false sexual harassment accusation leads to being unfairly fired. The path of least risk is to fire the victim of the accusation, without properly investigating.

The sexual harassment laws criminalize an otherwise consensual relationship between adults.

Also, "sexual harassment" gives the woman a free put option to complain to the State, if the relationship with the man goes badly. The woman does not immediately complain when the man has sex with her. Only later, if the man decides to dump her, does the woman complain.

That's what occurred in the case of Steve Philips. He had a relationship with the woman. He decided to end it. Only then does the "sexual harassment" scandal emerge. Of course, Steve Philips is guilty of making a lousy choice of partners. Also, it was immoral for him to have sex with another woman while married and not having the consent of his wife.

"Sexual harassment" cannot occur in a really free market. In a really free market, if women feel abused, then they'll start their own competing business. "Sexual harassment is illegal!" is closely related to "Prostitution is illegal!" Rather than fixing a corrupt system, "sexual harassment" laws criminalize otherwise consensual relationships. If you're a middle manager in a corporation, you're wasting other people's money when you have a sexual relationship with someone in exchange for job-related promotions. "Sexual harassment" also gives the woman a free option to complain to the State, if the relationship deteriorates and the man dumps her.

The laws and procedures regarding "sexual harassment" involve patching a fundamentally corrupt system, rather than fixing the flaw of a non-free market. As usual, the State causes a problem. The solution is to pass more laws and regulations, rather than eliminate the laws that caused the problem in the first place. "Sexual harassment" is only a problem because women who are abused can't form competing businesses.