Dentist’s actions were properly allowed.

In a free society, individuals should be allowed to voluntarily choose who they wish to associate with, or not associate with.   In an employment relationship, both the employer and employee should be free to terminate the employment relationship with or without notice, and for any reason or no reason – unless they contractually agree to something else.

In the recent case of the dentist who fired his dental assistant, the Iowa Supreme Court was correct in its decision to not  penalize the dentist.  The dental practice was the private property of the dentist.  There was no employment contract between the parties, so the employment relationship could properly be terminated by either party.

People who disagree with what the dentist did are free to peacefully protest against the dentist, and they can try to peacefully organize a boycott of his practice.  Remaining employees of the dentist are free to quit or to organize a peaceful strike against him if they wish.  But, no one should be able to use force, even a majority through government, to dictate the terms of the employment relationship or penalize either party for terminating the relationship.

If a government had been the employer, it would have been a completely different situation. Governments are created by all of the people to serve all of the people.  Government employers should only be allowed to discriminate based on factors related to job requirements and job performance.  But peaceful people acting voluntarily should be left alone by government to decide for themselves whether or not to enter into any relationships with one another and to set the terms of those relationships.

About these ads

2 thoughts on “Dentist’s actions were properly allowed.

  1. The problem with Libertarians is that they are too bloodless about this sort of thing. Can’t you at least admit this guy was a complete jerk and punished the young lady for what was essentially HIS problem? Who cares whether he was within his “rights” to do so. One’s actions should be judged by whether or not they did what was right, not whether or not they were “entitled ” to do what they did.

    • Jeff,
      I understand your point, But if we are to respect a person’s right to freedom of association and private property, and if we are to allow actions that are peaceful, then we will have cases were people act a jerks. But it is not a proper role of government to regulate the actions of jerks as long as they don’t use force or fraud against others and who do not otherwise infringe on the same rights of others. There are peaceful means to encourage employees to only work for employers who agree to not act like jerks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s