NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/ba/politics/8354

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 5.8 KB

Xref: sparky ba.politics:8354 ca.politics:10702 talk.politics.misc:70015
Path: sparky!uunet!infoserv!decwrl!hal.com!olivea!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!news.service.uci.edu!gordius!surfcty!rlm
From: [e-mail] (Robert McMillin)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:41:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: ca
Organization: Surf City Software, Orange, Calfornia - DUDE!
Lines: 94

[e-mail] (coram populo) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert McMillin) write
> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> >(coram populo) writes:
> >
> >> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Ronzon
> >> >A: I'd like to have sex with you.      A: I'd like to rent your room.
> >> >B: No thanks, you're not what I want.  B: No thanks, you're not what I wa
> >> >A: Oh well, too bad.                   A: Discrimination!!!!
> >> >
> >> >1. 80% of all "landlords" in California are individuals, not businesses.
> >>
> >What this boils down to is the idea that that freedom of choice within
> >sexual intercourse should be a protected right, while within economic
> >intercourse it should not. This is the exemplary attitude of the
> >socialist: protect my rights, but restrict those of that bad group over
> >there. If the majority passes laws for the regulation of some people's
> >activities (in this case, economic ones), then they may come knocking
> >down your door to see what goes on behind it (in Georgia's case, the
> >anti-sodomy laws).  In other words, if the majority in certain
> >California cities happen to believe in mild forms of socialism and place
> >(IMHO, unconstitutional) limits on rent, what's so wrong with a majority
> >in Georgia who happen to believe that homosexuality is a sin passing
> >anti-sodomy laws?
> >
>
> So we should take all restrictive laws both in personal and business sense
> off the books- allow whatever a business want's to do.  The question of
> boiling down- is not about your incorrect defintion of socialsim, and of
> course it is very unfashionable to mention socialsim, but rather how do
> we decide what the limits are to both personal liberty and business liberty.
> In some cases we have seen what happens in the business sphere, when left
> unchecked.
>
> Therefore, you would have to agree that a business which decides to exercise
> a discriminatory attitude, must be allowed (as in personal civil rights) all
> forms of discrimation.

Yes.  You absolutely, positively, cannot justify, based on the
Constitution of the United States, the kind of interference that
presently goes on in employer-employee relationships.  The fact is that
the Tenth Amendment goes ignored.  In case you forget, that is the one
reserving all powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution for
the States, or the people.  Now, granted, that leaves the states with
broad powers to regulate businesses, but the question in my mind is,
should they?  I say not, or at the very least, much less than occurs
today.

>
> For instance, it would be acceptable for a business, not to pay one empolyee'
> benefits for health insurance, while paying another employees, and give no
> particular reason.  Or pay one employee half the salary of another employee
> for the same job and performance level. In the social contact of any society,
> people look for and expect, to a certain degree, fairness in treatment.
>
>  Let's face one fact, if we want complete unfettered rights for individuals
> and businesses, then these things are going to happen, and people are not
> going to like it, and eventually groups of people will start building another
> set of laws and regulations.

Moan all you like: the marketplace takes care of a multitude of sins,
even those as egregious as those you mention.  People will be arbitrary,
no doubt about it, and they will discriminate, period.  Do we need to
therefore force some people to handle their personal decisions in a way
we arbitrarily define to be "fair"?  No.  Imagine, for instance, what
would happen if a racist took over a major-league baseball club and
decided to throw out all the black players.  Could he succeed?  Clearly
not.  What happens if widespread discrimination prevents ANY person from
competing for positions that they would be better qualified for than the
present applicants?  Look to Japanese baseball, which has limits on the
number of foreign (basically, American) players allowed on a team.  The
level of play falls below international standards.  In a time where
international trade is devastatingly important, such barriers cannot long
exist, nor can individuals shield themselves from the effects of such
trade.  These effects, far more injurious to the holders of property
(i.e., ball clubs) than regulations, will eventually be the thing that
drives away arbitrary descrimination.  Look at the recent events in sumo
wrestling: for the first time in history, the Japanese have handed the
crown to an American, despite xenophobic cries among certain groups.
Nobody passed any laws saying that the Japanese HAD to make an American
champion... he just won, and they let him be champ.  That's that.
Likewise, in the current soft (bottomless pit!) real estate market, I can
think of NOBODY who is turning down tenants with a demonstrated ability
to pay rent.  I know -- my father's in commercial real estate, and he's
hurting.

>
> It would be interesting to get responses from people that are not clouded
> by ideas such as socialism, facist, communist etc.  This is at best, a proces
> of simply labelling and therefore dismissing other's ideas, becuase if it
> smells of any ideas then it must be.

So, what are you trying to say?