Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 12:46:49 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: <None>

>> 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.)
>
>Andy really likes this example.  His relentlessly binary mind fails to
>see the difference between a private decision and a public offering.

Not at all.  Andy distinguishes an offer made in public from an offer
made to anyone that sees it.  I think that Peter should be able to
advertise publically for a mate without being forced to accept anyone
who shows up, unless, of course, that's what he advertises for.

>I'm a little surprised that he doesn't claim that that I maintain that
>his Ferrari dealership restricts his right to buy Fords by not stocking
>them.

Peter's beginning to get it - that is a restriction by the way he's
using the word.

>> Right, and we're trying to figure out the extent of those rights.  I
>> note that buyers have the right of arbitrary refusal, usually.
>
>Yep.  That's the contract--the seller makes an offering to the public
>and waits for an interested buyer.  If he wants to redefine "public"
>in a whimsical fashion that may cause some trouble.

What trouble?  If the Ferrari dealer says "swarthy Italians only",
is Peter going to call in the thugs?

Will Peter allow the dealer to make an offer in public that does not
include the public?

>> Who decides that fair price?  Can the seller use non-monetary
>> considerations?
>
>That depends on what they are.  In general, the same terms have to be
>offered to all comers.

Fine, but what terms can be offered?  For example, what if the dealer
says "swarthy Italians only"?  Some people don't qualify, but they've
been offered the terms.

>Sex, sex, sex!  Is that all you young people think about?

Not at all.  It merely provides examples with useful properties.

>> How is the prospective employee damaged?  S\He has everything s\he had
>> before.  That's just like a prospective, yet shunned, employer.
>
>I will leave it as an exercise for Andy to figure out how he may be
>damaged if all prospective employers within a certain area (say, North
>America) decided that they had the right not to associate with Andy.
>Or all prospective employers paying more than, say, five dollars an
>hour.

And yet, the only way to get that agreement is through legal thuggery.

Note that shutting someone out of employment isn't all that effective
unless you also shut them out of running their own biz as well.
Again, that requires legal thuggery.

>But when you make a public offer to sell, you are
>obligated to sell to anyone who meets your terms.

Fine, but that doesn't imply that terms offered in public can be met
by every member of the public.  I note that Peter approves of "have
enough money" terms.

>Jim Crow was a set of laws and a group of social agreements.  The lunch
>counter at the Woolworth's in Greensboro, NC wasn't prohibited from
>serving blacks, they just preferred not to.  Andy supports that choice.

Just as I support the boycott.

>But is there any difference from the point of view of somebody who
>wants to buy lunch at a public lunch counter?  No--they go hungry in
>either case.  Are the rights of the hungry people being violated?

No more so than the rights of hungry people with no money are violated
by that lunch counter's refusal to feed them.

If the counter says "anyone with money", I expect them to live up
to that.  If they want a different clientele, that's fine with me
too.

Note that the lunch counters didn't have the monopoly effect that
Peter uses to justify bringing in thugs.  Blacks were welcomed at some
lunch counters; they didn't go hungry.

>> >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.
>
>If you can show that restrictive housing covenants meet the goal of
>protecting a person or institution from a clear and substantial threat,
>or are required to allow the free exercise of religion without damaging
>the rights of others, I'd be perfectly willing to discuss it with you.

Hold it - what damage is Peter worried about?  Is he really suggesting
that an employer can discriminate based on what its employees advocate
on their own time?  I assumed that he was only worried about damage
done at work.  Can GM refuse to employ people who lobby (on their
time) for reduced vehicle import restrictions?

>> >A business owned by Jews is another matter.
>>
>> I guess this is just one of those eggs.
>
>It appears that the old literacy problem is kicking in again--I think
>that a business owned by Jews can legitimately be forced to hire a
>Nazi, as long as that Nazi is competent and not disruptive.  A person's
>mere existence is not a threat.

Yet, a church can't be forced to hire someone because of their
off-time activities.

>When you're out in public you sometimes have to coexist with people
>you find distasteful.  If you can't bring yourself to do that, stay
>home, run a one-person business and sell by mail.

Then the zoning thugs come in.  Oh, and we can't advertise either,
because Peter doesn't distinguish "offer made in public" from "offer
made to everyone in the public".

>> 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 seems to think that the rules of behavior in public should be the
>same as the rules of behavior in his living room.  Sorry, Andy, they're
>not.

Strawman.  Peter thinks that an unlocked or even open door implies that
all are welcome.  I think that the person who controls the door should
be allowed to place conditions on entry.

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