Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: 1986 SUPREME COURT RULING - (nf) Message-ID: <1565@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sat, 30-Jun-84 00:51:48 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.1565 Posted: Sat Jun 30 00:51:48 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jul-84 00:37:09 EDT Lines: 82 #R:sb6:-16200:inmet:7800100:000:4107 inmet!nrh Jun 28 14:47:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / rand-uni!edhall / 2:06 am Jun 27, 1984 >+ >> This brings up an interesting point: why do we pick on businesses, and not >> consumers? > . . . >> Does anyone really think this is reasonable? If so, why? If you don't, how >> do you justify placing restrictions on a business that you wouldn't place >> on a person? >> >> >Really, now. How do you justify placing restrictions on a government >that you wouldn't place on a person? And no value judgements on the >relative worthiness of businesses vs. governments. > Excuse me -- What restriction was he placing on the government that he wouldn't place on a person? I wouldn't mind governments so long as they kept to the same rules that people do: no theft (taxation) is a big one, or do you agree that I personally should have the right to extort money from you "because you're under my protection", and put you in jail if you didn't pay up? >The answer is a simple one: like any other form of law, restrictions on >business practices are (ostensibly) for the good of the community at >large. In the U.S., freedom is usually considered a large component of >this public good. But tradeoffs need to be made between the freedoms >allowed people: the freedom to be secure in person and property must >supercede any supposed freedom for assault or larceny. And the freedom >of being treated equally must supercede the freedom to discriminate >against people on racial or sexual grounds. It even SOUNDS awkward: the "freedom of being treated equally". Let me let you in on a little secret: the idea behind this country had to do with being "created" equally, and with equality before the LAW. The freedom of being treated equally means that you get to go to the olympics and claim the gold medal because you are "equal" to the person who comes in first. It means that you can go before a court and demand to be cut in on Howard Hughes' fortune because you are to be treated "equally" with everyone else. It means you may force people who do not like you to associate with you. It means that you may force women who do not find you attractive to sleep with you. This notion of "freedom of being treated equally" can be mighty handy if you follow out its ramifications. It's a little tough on freedom, though. >However, the highest >freedom is that of self-determination. Outlawing discrimination in >personal choice would go against this. On the other hand, outlawing >discrimination in commerce enhances self-determination. An intriguing dichotomy. "Commerce" vs. "personal choice". You've missed Mike's point: the businesses are run by people. It is a matter of personal choice (or should be) who they do business with. If you include the self-determination of both the consumer and the producer, and think about it for a while, you'll find, I think, that neither one is as free after the government comes around telling them that they MUST deal. And what about the producer's "freedom of self-determination"? If you wish to combat bigotry, I'm all for it. If you wish to do it by enhancing the power of the state by introducing such concepts as the "freedom of being treated equally", and with no regards for the self-determination of the bigots, forget it. Private bigots are disgusting, but the appropriate tools against them (boycott, ostracism, education) do not involve interfering with their decisions at gunpoint. Public bigots -- the ones who would destroy equality before law are another matter. They are a horrible danger and must be dealt with immediately. Do I contradict myself? Am I here saying that a government has less right to be bigoted than a person? No. The simplest way to set the situation right would be to remove the Government's special right to initiate force. Failing that, though, the government IS special, and if you won't allow me to restrict it as I would a business (you won't allow me to curtail its "right" to initiate force), please allow me to curtail its power to discriminate on capricious (racial, sexual, religious) grounds.