NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/ba/politics/8348

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 8.0 KB

Xref: sparky ba.politics:8348 ca.politics:10697
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Path: sparky!uunet!infoserv!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!phil
From: [e-mail] (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: The UCO (Universal Can Opener)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:18:57 GMT
Lines: 174

Andrew J. Galambos coined a wonderful name for a question to use when
confronted with about all of the problems we face in dealing with
other people. He called this question the "Universal Can Opener", as in
opening up (solving) sticky problems.

The UCO is "Whose property is it?"

Now, let's use it in the following.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (coram populo) writes:
    >Rational reasoning for individual freedom-
    >
    >Anyone has the utter right to the freedom or their own body,
    >and to the complete consent as to what happens with their own
    >personal body. And of course, this is within reason of what a
    >community finds acceptable as to what an individual may do
    >with their body in relationship to the entire group. For
    >example, people may not want you to lay across a sidewalk and
    >block pedestrians. People may not want you to stand up in
    >front of them in a movie theatre and block their view. They
    >may not want you to walk down the middle of a freeway.

"Coram Populo" is desperately trying to avoid the concept of property and
to avoid acknowledgment that his position is meaningless without the
concept of property.

1. How can you have freedom of one's own body (and what one does with it)
   WITHOUT property? That chair you are sitting on - is it yours? Do you
   have a right to sit there? To be in that building? How about clothes,
   air, water, food?

   You can not exercise ANY rights without property rights.

   Indeed, there are only three kinds of property - your body, your ideas,
   and your tangible derivatives (clothes, houses, money, cars, etc.).

2. Note that "problem" mentioned above (laying across a sidewalk, standing up
   in a movie theatre, walking down a freeway, are ALL property problems.

   a. Laying across a sidewalk. O.K., whoses sidewalk is it? Do you have
      permission? Yes, no problem. No, go away.

   b. Standing up in a movie. Whose theatre is it? Do you have their
      permission? Are you following their rules? If not, leave.

   c. Walking on a freeway. Is it your freeway? if not, are you using it per
      the rules of the owner? If not, go away.

    >Rational reasoning for anti-discrimination laws-
    >
    >Everyone has the utter right to the pursuit of happiness. It
    >is this phrase that starts the problematic condition of the
    >extrapolation of individual rights to that of property. Even
    >the constitution had a change when the initial phrase was, in
    >my words, "pursuit of private property" not as it is now.

What are you talking about? There was no such phrase in any draft of the
U.S. Constitution, nor anything even close to it.

    >To state a position in a rational manner, I would present the
    >follow argument. The conditions of business do not rationally
    >lend themselves to elements which do not have firm
    >contractual basis in the arena of what business is about. For
    >example, the purchase of an item with money is a simple
    >contract, it is an exchange, there are other parts of this
    >contract that may deal with defective product or worthless
    >monetary exchanges (e.g. bounced checks). But there is no
    >involvement or need to differentiate this transaction based
    >on race, creed, religion, etc. This does not mean it will not
    >occur, but their is no rational basis, and for many there is
    >no moral basis.

Huh? You are not very clear. But looking at your last two sentences, you
are incorrect. I would not sell or deal with any member of the Shiite
religion. Other people do not want to deal with certain nationalities
(South Africa). NAMBLA, by definition, is a creed. I won't deal with
them nor will many other people.

If I was like that woman who was terrified of large black males from a
mugging (the one on disability from it), I wouldn't want to deal with blacks.

The fact that something is rational OR irrational to YOU is meaningless.

You and I can walk across a 30-foot-long, 16-inch-wide steel beam when it
is on the ground. Place that beam 30 stories up, and even on a windless day
most of us couldn't cross that beam. Irrational? Perhaps.

Most people can't stand to handle snakes, even non-poisonous ones.

I prefer Butterfinger candu bars over steamed Broccoli. Irrational? Yes.
Do most people agree with my taste on that? Absolutely.



What goes completely over your head is the fact the the government is here
ONLY to ensure our maximal pursuit of happiness. And that pursuit is
always 100% subjective.

*I* think butt fucking other guys is distateful, gross, and irrational.
But, if that is what makjes YOU happy, and everybody is consenting, pursue
it.

    >In another area of great debate, we can look at the
    >contractual arrangements that involve renting a property to
    >someone. Again from a rational viewpoint renting a said
    >property to an individual involves only elements that are
    >related to this type of business intercourse. Agree about
    >rental fee, deposits, pets, possible damages to property,
    >possible enhancements to property. But there is no rational
    >reason to base the rental of said property to an individual
    >based on race, creed, religion, etc., but again this does not
    >mean it will not happen.

You are so utterly fucking wrong. Most people that hold strong religious
views prefer to associate with like minded people. Which do you think
a deeply devout Christian would prefer to rent to? A fellow Christian,
a Jew, a Shiite, and atheist?

Creed we've already covered -- I wouldn't rent a NAMBLA-ite.

Race? Why not. If you don't like white people, why shouldn't you be able
to NOT rent to white people.

    >So we are left in a quandary. How do create conditions that
    >offer the fairest treatment of both renter and rentee. Some
    >will immediately say that the property owner is to be given
    >full charge of their property, and to do as they deem fit.
    >Others will say that the renter should have the opportunity
    >to rent a property solely based on the parameters that
    >business deals within. Those being financial considerations
    >and historical considerations of rentee past treatment of a
    >rental situtaion.

Whose property is it? The owners. WHAT gives you the "RIGHT" to force the
owner to do something he doesn't want to?

To say NO to intercourse, social OR sexual, is always moral.

To force intercourse (social or sexual) upon someone against their wishes via
coercion, is rape.


    >It is my opinion that we are hard pressed to make congruent
    >the relationship between individual rights and private
    >property rights. Rather, those who attempt to do this, built
    >a concept about why it is and should be that way, while those
    >oppose built a concept as to why it shouldn't be that way.
    >And both, contain correct elements as to why there position
    >is the best. The only sure outcome is to bring about a
    >balance between these two positions, of course, it also
    >requires that all parties involve agree to haggle over the
    >final conditions.

You have stated no moral premise to base anything on. You have taken two
opposed positions, and have attempted to paint a picture of "all we need
is compromise".

Sorry -- on most moral issues, there are no compromises.

He wants to not murder, he wants to murder. Gee fellows, let's compromise.

Get it?

And finally, on what moral premise do you base your "right" to tell (FORCE)
other people what to do with their property?




--
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)