home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!SAIL.STANFORD.EDU!ANDY
- Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
- Message-ID: <9212292046.AA12781@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 12:46:49 -0800
- Sender: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET>
- From: Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
- Subject: Re: <None>
- In-Reply-To: <POLITICS%92122913145462@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>
- Lines: 145
-
- >> While Peter may want to gloss over this distinction, it allows us to
- >> avoid the absurdity of "Peter is violating my friend's right to have
- >> sex with a consenting adult by refusing to put out". (Said friend is
- >> willing to travel, so Peter is free to propose a convenient time.)
- >
- >Andy really likes this example. His relentlessly binary mind fails to
- >see the difference between a private decision and a public offering.
-
- Not at all. Andy distinguishes an offer made in public from an offer
- made to anyone that sees it. I think that Peter should be able to
- advertise publically for a mate without being forced to accept anyone
- who shows up, unless, of course, that's what he advertises for.
-
- >I'm a little surprised that he doesn't claim that that I maintain that
- >his Ferrari dealership restricts his right to buy Fords by not stocking
- >them.
-
- Peter's beginning to get it - that is a restriction by the way he's
- using the word.
-
- >> Right, and we're trying to figure out the extent of those rights. I
- >> note that buyers have the right of arbitrary refusal, usually.
- >
- >Yep. That's the contract--the seller makes an offering to the public
- >and waits for an interested buyer. If he wants to redefine "public"
- >in a whimsical fashion that may cause some trouble.
-
- What trouble? If the Ferrari dealer says "swarthy Italians only",
- is Peter going to call in the thugs?
-
- Will Peter allow the dealer to make an offer in public that does not
- include the public?
-
- >> Who decides that fair price? Can the seller use non-monetary
- >> considerations?
- >
- >That depends on what they are. In general, the same terms have to be
- >offered to all comers.
-
- Fine, but what terms can be offered? For example, what if the dealer
- says "swarthy Italians only"? Some people don't qualify, but they've
- been offered the terms.
-
- >Sex, sex, sex! Is that all you young people think about?
-
- Not at all. It merely provides examples with useful properties.
-
- >> How is the prospective employee damaged? S\He has everything s\he had
- >> before. That's just like a prospective, yet shunned, employer.
- >
- >I will leave it as an exercise for Andy to figure out how he may be
- >damaged if all prospective employers within a certain area (say, North
- >America) decided that they had the right not to associate with Andy.
- >Or all prospective employers paying more than, say, five dollars an
- >hour.
-
- And yet, the only way to get that agreement is through legal thuggery.
-
- Note that shutting someone out of employment isn't all that effective
- unless you also shut them out of running their own biz as well.
- Again, that requires legal thuggery.
-
- >But when you make a public offer to sell, you are
- >obligated to sell to anyone who meets your terms.
-
- Fine, but that doesn't imply that terms offered in public can be met
- by every member of the public. I note that Peter approves of "have
- enough money" terms.
-
- >Jim Crow was a set of laws and a group of social agreements. The lunch
- >counter at the Woolworth's in Greensboro, NC wasn't prohibited from
- >serving blacks, they just preferred not to. Andy supports that choice.
-
- Just as I support the boycott.
-
- >But is there any difference from the point of view of somebody who
- >wants to buy lunch at a public lunch counter? No--they go hungry in
- >either case. Are the rights of the hungry people being violated?
-
- No more so than the rights of hungry people with no money are violated
- by that lunch counter's refusal to feed them.
-
- If the counter says "anyone with money", I expect them to live up
- to that. If they want a different clientele, that's fine with me
- too.
-
- Note that the lunch counters didn't have the monopoly effect that
- Peter uses to justify bringing in thugs. Blacks were welcomed at some
- lunch counters; they didn't go hungry.
-
- >> >Considering the history of the Nazis, it is reasonable for a synagogue
- >> >to prefer that employees not be Nazis (or be Jews, which should have
- >> >the same result).
- >>
- >> We could show the same benefit from restrictive housing covenants,
- >> which Peter opposes.
- >
- >If you can show that restrictive housing covenants meet the goal of
- >protecting a person or institution from a clear and substantial threat,
- >or are required to allow the free exercise of religion without damaging
- >the rights of others, I'd be perfectly willing to discuss it with you.
-
- Hold it - what damage is Peter worried about? Is he really suggesting
- that an employer can discriminate based on what its employees advocate
- on their own time? I assumed that he was only worried about damage
- done at work. Can GM refuse to employ people who lobby (on their
- time) for reduced vehicle import restrictions?
-
- >> >A business owned by Jews is another matter.
- >>
- >> I guess this is just one of those eggs.
- >
- >It appears that the old literacy problem is kicking in again--I think
- >that a business owned by Jews can legitimately be forced to hire a
- >Nazi, as long as that Nazi is competent and not disruptive. A person's
- >mere existence is not a threat.
-
- Yet, a church can't be forced to hire someone because of their
- off-time activities.
-
- >When you're out in public you sometimes have to coexist with people
- >you find distasteful. If you can't bring yourself to do that, stay
- >home, run a one-person business and sell by mail.
-
- Then the zoning thugs come in. Oh, and we can't advertise either,
- because Peter doesn't distinguish "offer made in public" from "offer
- made to everyone in the public".
-
- >> I have no trouble with the idea that other people have the same rights
- >> that I want for myself. They have a right to refuse to associate, the
- >> same right that I have. Unlike Peter, I have no interest in sicing
- >> thugs on them to get them to interact. Peter seems to think that
- >> every interaction should be monitored by the "is this good" police. I
- >> prefer the judgement of the participants.
- >
- >Andy seems to think that the rules of behavior in public should be the
- >same as the rules of behavior in his living room. Sorry, Andy, they're
- >not.
-
- Strawman. Peter thinks that an unlocked or even open door implies that
- all are welcome. I think that the person who controls the door should
- be allowed to place conditions on entry.
-
- -andy
- --
-