Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:31:51 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: <None>

>> However, he also suggested that that was the only "legit" reason and
>> that none other had been offered.
>
>Wrong.  I suggested that there was no "legit" reason, and that none had
>been offered that could stand up to examination.

While that has the advantage of accurately reflecting Peter's position,
it's wrong.

>> No, it isn't.  Restrictions come from third parties.  Choices by
>> participants are different.  For example, restrictions require
>> enforcement while choices don't.
>
>No, restrictions come from others.  Whether they are second, third or
>nth parties is irrelevant.  The relevant question is whether they are
>violating the rights of the person restricted and, if so, that violation
>is warranted by other important concerns.

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.)

>> Actually, we are trying to avoid "he can't afford that"
>> "discrimination", which is why I used that example.  Why is "doesn't
>> have enough money" acceptable when "wrong orientation/color" isn't?
>> Why is "wrong orientation/color" acceptable from employees/customers,
>> but not employers/sellers?
>
>Because both parties to the transaction have rights.

Right, and we're trying to figure out the extent of those rights.  I
note that buyers have the right of arbitrary refusal, usually.

>The seller has the right to a fair price.

Who decides that fair price?  Can the seller use non-monetary
considerations?

>The buyer has the right to the goods if that price is met.

Another friend has sex with selected consenting adults for free.
Obviously the agreed on price for said friend is "$0"; does this imply
that anyone who comes up with $0 is entitled to a good time?

>Furthermore, the employee or buyer has a limited ability to damage
>the employer or seller--there is no dependency relationship, for the
>most part.  The employer or seller has a greater ability to damage the
>employee (job hunter) or buyer,

How is the prospective employee damaged?  S\He has everything s\he had
before.  That's just like a prospective, yet shunned, employer.

I note that the Ferrari dealer "depends" on customers for sales, just
as the customers depend on said dealer for Ferraris from that dealer.
If anything, the dealer is more dependent.

>as Jim Crow should have proven pretty conclusively.

Jim Crow is an illuminating example.  It demonstrates that Peter has
difficulty distinguishing govt action (restrictions by my definition)
from private choices.  The Jim Crow laws also demonstrate that Peter's
approach doesn't have the "it always cuts the right way" feature he
assumes.

>> We're going to have to require synagogues to hire Nazis and AAs to
>> patronize Nazis, abandon this whole misguided endeavor, or prove that
>> we're discriminating against "bad" politics.  Pick one.
>
>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.

>A business owned by Jews is another matter.

I guess this is just one of those eggs.

>Andy seems to have some trouble with the concept that other people have
>rights, too.

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
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU