From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:31:51 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1jvtk2INNqn4@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
    >But they enter into business contracts when they rent their
    >properties. They install legal business documents, many
    >landlords are 'businesses' because they adopt a DBA or if
    >using their own name e.g. Smith & Sons But all acts within
    >the process of property rental is business. The idea being
    >that a business is somewhat lacking in a human identity. We
    >call businesses by their names, whether it is the owner's
    >name or a DBA. So all parties then enter into contracts with
    >each other and since it operates within the larger sphere of   <=====
    >the community, it must make certain concessions, in order to   <=====
    >bring about a fairness of treatment of a large spectrum of     <=====
    >individuals.                                                   <=====

Why? This is no moral basis for this that I have ever heard. Now, YOU can
repeat this all day long if you want, but then, all that amounts to is
"sez you".

A business is an aggregate of individuals. Now, last time *I* looked, I saw
notjhing in the USC that lessened the rights of individuals when they
gathered together, for ANY reason.


    >>2. What does being a "business" have to do with it? Does a
    >>business (a coporation, partnership, or a plain DBA) have any
    >>less civil rights that an individual? (Answer, no, of course
    >>not).
    >>
    >>
    >Well that is the question, isn't it? It is unclear and very
    >undefined territory. But to simply counter your no, I would
    >say that this is not a case of 'individual' civil rights.
    >Whether one deals with an individual or a group
    >(corportaion), if you decide to do business then you enter a
    >contractual agreement. It is based solely on business. As a
    >reverse example- most companies and corporations are not
    >democratic in nature. What ever boss says, goes. Many times
    >the employee has no say. So when we speak of civil rights for
    >the employer or business, what happened to the civil rights
    >of the employee? In other examples a boss may tell an
    >employee that it is inappropriate for them to engage in an
    >activity (we will say it is political) while they are at
    >work- but, this is a violation of their civil rights. What is
    >really being said is, while I pay you, I own your time, and
    >therefore I own you and your productivity. So what is to be
    >said for civil rights when one is at their job?

What planet are you on? Unlike the COERCIVE FUCKIN' FASCIST STATE, no one made
you work for any business. You don't like it, go to work for one of the
multi-hundreds-of-thousands of corporations in this country.

I suppose if you ever marry/enter-committed-relationship you'll bitch how
your partner interferes with your civils rights because he/she/it wants you
to be monogamous.

    >Your example has a missing component- one is contractual
    >(legally binding) and the other is not. To decide to have sex
    >with someone, in general, is a private and noncontractual
    >arrangement. To rent a property from someone is a legal and a
    >contractual arrangement.

As part of a definition in and of itself, a contract is not valid unless
something of "value" is exchanged. Courts have recognized another persons
time as the sole value in some cases.

You really don't what you are talking about do you?

    >So in the sphere of business, where there is no democracy,
    >but only legally binding contractual agreements, discrimating
    >based on color, creed, religion or whatever does not make
    >much sense.

This is MORE and BETTER democracy in businesses in this country than we
have from the State. For example, if I don't like Safeway, I can go to
Lucky's or etc. And Safeway isn't extoring money from me either to subsidize
it.

Now, where is school choice? I can't even educaye my kids at home without
substantial State interference.

Give me a business any day of the week.

    >>Remember, if (for example) YOU want to fuck whatever, then HE
    >>gets to rent to |>whatever.
    >>
    >And again you leave out the point- fuck whatever is not a
    >contractual agreement, renting is a contractual agreement.

And also -- sexual intercourse is considered part of a contractual agreement.
If you have a sexual disease, know it, and don't tell your partner,
you've committed the same kind of wrong act as breaking a contract.

If certain tangibles, such as engagement rings are exchanged, then there
are other contractual arrangements ( a man gave a girl a ring, then when
she didn't have sexual intercourse, he brokle off the engagement. The courts
ruled that she HAD to give the ring back, even if she wasn't the one that
broke the engagement, because of normal and expected situations that a
marriage entails -- i.e., she doesn't fuck him now, he can reasonably assume
she won't later).

    >You are right about one aspect of a business being just its
    >people, they are greedy and will take as much as they can.

You have a classic Marxist view of things. A contract is a more formal
method of dealing with the ways we humans interact withe each other.
A business man TRADES -- he/she does NOT "take" -- only communists,
socialists, and other fascists do that.

I've yet to have Safeway take ONE SINGLE FUCKING THING FROM ME. The State?
Well, we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars here so far ...




-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc