From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:04:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Jul20.235533.248@morrow.stanford.edu>, GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
[what's the difference (in terms of government interest) between sex and business]
|> 
|> And where in this little essay have you answered my question?  If
|> the difference is so obvious why can't you explain it to me in nice
|> simple language that even a dumb Liberian can understand because I
|> *don't* see any fundamental difference.
|> 
Sex isn't a commodity which is in limited supply.
Usually I'm willing to have sex with a very narrow
class of people (currently one).  The economy
does not critically depend upon there being a sex
industry and a means of distribution to the masses.
When I have sex, I haven't reduced the world supply of sex.

Housing is different.  It's in limited supply, and
there are adverse social consequences to consistently
denying adequate housing to certain classes of people.
Therefore society can regulate the housing business.

|> In both cases ou have people willing to trade something of value to
|> them for something that is of greater value to them.  
You're using a different meaning of "trade".  If I trade
you my Rickey Henderson rookie card for a Yogi Berra,
I've given up my card.  If I have sex with you, I've given
up nothing.

|> Obviously
|> food, sex and money are different values but they are all values and
|> libertarians believe that all values should be exchanged only by
|> mutual agreement.  Do you disagree with this?
Yes.  If you stretch the meaning of "value" so that sex
is a value, why can't I stretch the meaning of "value"
so that my cost of living is a value?  Then by your
logic, "my" cost of living is my personal property
and the phone company can't alter it without my consent.
Obviously libertarians don't believe that, since they
want the phone company to have the ability to unilaterally
modify "my" cost of living.  So they have to carefully 
define value in an arbitrary way to make their conclusions
come out.  If cost of living were a property, the phone
company's action would be "stealing".

|>   Do you disagree that
|> food sex and money are all values?  Just what is it that you
|> disagree with other than that some people may hold values of which
|> you personally disapprove?
|> 
Yet another meaning of "value".  

I don't buy the whole libertarian premise that there are natural
"values" and a natural individual right to contract, together
with a government obligation to enforce these rights.  I believe
in the philosophy of the US constitution, where the government
exists in order to provide the essential prerequisites
of healthy commerce, and where the voters through legislation
can pass laws that preserve the health of this commerce.


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36067 talk.politics.theory:3045 alt.discrimination:3730