Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm From: mwm@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: 1986 SUPREME COURT RULING - (nf) Message-ID: <10100057@ea.UUCP> Date: Mon, 16-Jul-84 11:40:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ea.10100057 Posted: Mon Jul 16 11:40:00 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jul-84 04:28:39 EDT References: <162@sb6.UUCP> Lines: 50 Nf-ID: #R:sb6:-16200:ea:10100057:000:2069 Nf-From: ea!mwm Jul 16 10:40:00 1984 #R:sb6:-16200:ea:10100057:000:2069 ea!mwm Jul 16 10:40:00 1984 , >>> == me, > = Tom Condon >/***** ea:net.politics / teldata!tac / 11:08 pm Jul 11, 1984 */ >>> You missed the point of my question, which wasn't hard considering how well >>> I (unintentionally) hid it. It boils down to: what is it about starting a >>> business that causes your freedom to be restricted? >>> >>> >> >Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will), but aren't you proposing >that we subsidize all restaurants? What I said amounts to subsidizing all restaurants, yes indeedy. I didn't say we should do so, I didn't even say it was a good idea. >Maybe if you get your way I'll open a health food restaurant which >only serves raw wheat in 1 oz. servings at $5000.00 each. It isn't my way - I think it would be a *horrible* way to do things. >The free enterprise system is dedicated to and founded on the precept that >if you provide a good product people will provide you with a good income. >When you go mucking around with it it no longer works correctly. It's not clear that free enterprise works "correctly" before you start mucking around with it. Of course, that depends on how you define correctly. It'd be interesting to give a *real* free enterprise system (something the world has never had) a chance and see how it worked. >Now if I have misread you and you were spouting sarcasm, I apologize. No, I wasn't spouting sarcasm, I was trying to get a question answered. I'll try asking again (for the last time?): How do you justify passing laws that force non-prejudiced behavior on people who own/run companies, when you don't pass similar laws for people who don't own/run companies? Note: I am *not* advocating prejudiced behavior - I don't like nonsensical behavior. I'm trying to get the above question answered. The only *attempt* to answer the question has been Ed Halls (paraphrased) "The good of the community outways the freedom of people who own companies, but not the freedom of individuals." What you quoted from is my reply to that, pointing out that this may not be so.