From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Why should Freedom of Association not apply to commerce?
Summary: All depends on your view of "man"
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:50:09 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA


In article <o8601ms@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <0yxm-w#.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>
>>If I am a 65-year old Italian shopkeeper with deep Catholic convictions, I
>>have the right (interfered with by immoral coercive laws) to reject
>>service to a homosexual that entered my shop -- even though that individual
>>was friendly, courteous, and had the same kind of money as everyone else.
>
>Why can't libertarians understand the difference between individuals and
>businesses.  In individual relationships, do what you please.  In
>business relations, you have to play with everyone.
>

Why?  


Our actions on this earth are many and varied.  Often, the boundary
between commerce and personal relationships is blurred or non-existent.
  
If we look at prostitution for example, we see it combined.
If we look at dating, we see it combined.
If we look at marriage, we see it combined.
If we look at a partnership business agreement, we see it combined.
If we look at any kind of business relationship, we see that there
are many personal components which make it work (or break it up--eg
The Beatles).  
If we look at any kind of personal relationship, we often find that
there are commercial implications, to a greater or lesser degree.  

And if we can find somewhere a personal human relationship which has
zero commercial attributes, so what?  Does that negate the rest of
the data?

Maslow's concept of self-actualization can not be isolated as a
strictly personal activity; it has commercial implications as well.
But then, neither can self-actualization be restricted to whether
an individual is employed.  The pursuit of happiness is both 
intensely personal, and commercial, at the same time.

Certainly there are distinctions between the personal and the commercial,
but the way we react to those differences (as in whether or not we believe 
that humans should be prohibited from exercising full discretion in all cases)
speaks to a much deeper issue: our view of "man."  [includes women OK?]

I think libertarians tend to think of "man" in classical
liberal terms (Homo Economicus).  "Man" is thought of as a being who
chooses things, usually rationally but sometimes irrationally,
exercising the power of choice in pursuit of his or her
own perceived ends.  In this view of "man," there is no wall between
personal and commercial pursuits--they are merely different
"areas" of man's "choosing" environment.   Certainly there is
much more to "man" than this simple model, but the usefulness of the model
in the study of economics and other social sciences is--dare I say it--
self-evident.

I am interested what kind of concept of "man" would allow the
philosophical isolation of the commercial and the personal
aspects of human life.  If I had to guess, 
I would assume that it would be some deterministic model. 
Rather than risk being accused of setting up a net.strawman, I await the 
arrival of the real foe...

It's the battle of the century!  Homo Economicus vs Homo ?

If we disagree on our concept of "man," we are not likely to agree on
political issues, so let's get to the crux.


--Al Date

(My newsfeed has a delay loop of a week, so if you want serious debate
try ald@clipper.ingr.com.)

I choose Genis for Senate
Newsgroups: ba.politics