Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:09:29 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Discrimination and Prostitution.

[Um, this is long, but worth it.  Really.  And nowhere
in this post do I take any shots, cheap or otherwise,
at -T.]

the good doctor says:
>I have always been consistent.

  It may surprise Mz Pizz to discover this, but I wasn't
in any was suggesting that he had been inconsistent.  In
fact, a circular argument is wonderfully consistent.  It
just doesn't prove much.

he continues:
>I think that businesses should be free
>from any discrimination laws, as long as they get no federal money.  In
>other words, I am against regulation of their practices, including the
>racial and sexual discrimination laws.

  Nevertheless, it is your own claim that businezzes are
liable to certain government restrictions.  In your initial
post, you argued that businezzes should not be permitted
to require any illegal activity from their employees, such
as prostitution.  Now you have clarified that position,
asserting (you don't mind, I hope, if I omit most of your
points for brevity's and ellen's sake) :

>My logic is sound because I
>have consistently stated that
>4) Certain laws prevent prostitution, fraud, false advertising, etc.
>These are important, as they force business to follow the same laws as
>private citizens, against the equivalents of prostitution, theft,
>slander/libel.

>5) Private individuals have the right to discriminate against people in
>their choice of sexual partners, friends, associates, clubs, etc.  Why
>should Private business be held to a higher standard just because they
>are a money making group as opposed to a social group?

  Well, the problem iz, pizz, in these.

  Let me see....  Your first claim, that businezzes cannot do things
which are illegal has been modified now.  The claim is that we cannot
have different laws for businezzes than we have for private personal
interests.  Is that correct?

  If so, you have *both* flaws in your premises *and* flaws in
your logic.  One at a time.

  Let's start with Prostitution - or really, let's start with
employers requiring sex from their employees.  And we'll apply
your premises.

  i)  private businezz should not be held to laws which do not
      also apply to private people in their personal, social
      affairs.

  (I trust that is a fair restatement of your claim.  Nothing up
my sleeve.)

  Let's examine laws regarding sex in social situations.  There
are, in some states, laws regarding the type of sex individuals
are allowed to engage in.  There are laws restricting sex with
minors.  But other than that, one is pretty much free to have
sex with anyone one cares to, so long as the partner is willing.
*That* is the sum of the laws regarding sex as a social activity.

  Thus, businezzes should be allowed to require sex from employees,
since it is all up front, and no one is being forced to take the job.

  "But wait!" cries Pizz.  "I already handled this one quite adroitly,
if I say so myself!"

  "No," says Tim, "that's the rub."

  "Prostitution is illegal!" cries Pizz.

  Ah, indeed.  But what is prostitution, Pizz?  It is sex for money,
isn't it.  It is sex as businezz, isn't it.  It seems the only conclusion
which follows naturally and straightforwardly from your very consistent
positions (ooh, double entendre!) is that laws against prostitution are
anathema!  Why?  Because they hold the small time entrepreneur (and you'll
excuse me if I quote your own words, just to emphasize that this is a
conclusion from your premises) "to a higher standard just because
they are a money making group as opposed to a social group."

  Perhaps you *haven't* always been consistent.  It seems your reluctance
to allow employers to require sex as part of the assigned duties is in
direct and obvious logical contradiction with your premises.  A glaring
inconsistency, if I do say so myself.  (And indeed, I hope the Logic
Czar is watching.  I'd like to get this week's award.)

  See, Mz Pizz, if you can answer this simple direct question in a
simple direct manner.  Are you prepared to allow sex in the office
place (and prostitution in general) or will you instead break your
principle against holding money making concerns to different laws?

  I'll tell you what, I'll give you a break.  Before you make any
hasty decisions (you may find you will have to allow both!) let's
address the other serious problematic premise.

  You claim that economic activity should not be held to any laws which
do not apply to social activity.

  To be quite honest with you, Pizz, you are going to have to do
more than just assert this.  You are going to have to go some way
toward proving this.  Let me get you started though.

  One reason why economic activity and social activity should be
governed by the same laws:  They are the same thing.

  A slightly different reason why economic activity and social activity
should be governed by similar laws: They are completely analogous.

  Those are the easy proofs - they suffer only from the fatal flaw
of being quite plainly incorrect.  I'm afraid that, myself, I can't
see any other reason that laws for economic activity and social
activity need be the same.

  I'm willing to go one step further.  I'm willing to assert that
not only is the activity not analogous, but that the laws *you* assert
as legitimate because they *are* analogous are *not* analogous.

  Well, hell, I won't just assert it, I'll demonstrate it.

  Pizz's Social Laws                  Pizz's Analgous Economic Laws
    No Prostitution                     No Prostitution
    No Theft                            No Fraud
    No Slander/Libel                    No False Advertising

  We've already handled the prostitution thing.  Laws against
prostitution are simply not laws against social activity, they
are laws against economic activity.

  Theft and Fraud.  In Theft, you take something that belongs
to someone else, against their will, and without recompense.
In Fraud, you trade something that you make people believe they
want for something that you know you want.  Fraud is about
deception, and not theft.  As far as I know, in the purely
social realm, there are no legal sanctions against lying.
You know, bringing laws governing economic activity into line
with this will wreak havoc with contracts.

  Slander and Libel are about defamation.  False Advertising
is about the *opposite* sort of activity.  Falsely praising
one's product.  These are so simply and plainly dissimilar,
that no further explanation should be required.

   More Laws Governing Economic Activity        Social Analogy
     No insider trading                           No telling secrets
     No breaking contracts                        No breaking New Year's
                                                     Resolutions

  Shall we enforce the second column, or stop enforcing the first?

  I think it quite admirable that you had what you believed
to be a rational basis for your belief.  I find it more
admirable still that you were willing to outline the argument.
But, unfortunately, it is not particularly sound.  If you have
a better argument for your belief, or think (beyond reason, I'm
inclined to add) that this argument can indeed be salvaged,
well, I'll be anxious to hear it.

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