From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Rational approaches (Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Date: 27 Jan 1993 19:20:37 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan27.074358.2840@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Let me show you what I mean:
>
>1. How a woman feels about rape can vary. A prostitute may look at it as
>   little more than "not getting paid", or she may view it as one of the
>   worst things she has ever experienced.
>
>   A woman in a "date rape" situation (as defined by some feminists) may
>   not feel raped or even coerced.
>
>   Rape, and the victims response, can subjectively vary from zero to
>   utter horror.
>
>2. A person FORCED by the State to rent his/her house to a homosexual can
>   have a similar response. From little or no "discomfort", to, say for
>   a deeply religious Christian, utter horror at being forced to rent his/her
>   house to what they view as an abomination.
>
>   Consider YOUR feelings if some coercive so-called anti-discrimination
>   law forced YOU to live/rent-to an Aryan Nation member.
>
>
>Now, that's why I disagree with you. I told you that you were wrong and
>I explained my reasoning. If you can't explain YOUR reasoning, please
>feel free to post to alt.flame or /dev/null.
>
>

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.

Also keep in mind that the argument rest of rational reasons why 
people may not want you to do certain things with your body.  Of
course someone will say that sodomy can be shown to be not rational,
and that may be true, but it is an event which occurs between to
consenting adults, and therefore as for the group, is no concern
of theirs.


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.

One may have private property- but to say that this property is subject
to and part of your own individual rights is the crux of the conflict.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc