From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:49:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.165244.6839@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>However, the other ways do not as carefully protect the rights
>>of the accused. In the case of descrimination laws, this isn't
>>the case: The accused is sentenced to (at least) massive legal fees.

>As he or she is in any other legal proceeding. What's your point?

No, in contrast, criminal courts are required to provide a lawyer
at public expense to defendant who wants one. A can be accused of
armed robbery and never have to pay a cent in legal fees. In 
civil courts, where discrimination cases are heard, there is no
such requirement.

>My experience is that judges do *not* look kindly upon "frivolous"
>suits.

_Some_ judges don't but many aren't all that hostile, or at least
don't lest their hostility effect their behavior on the bench.

>>Since the rights of the accused, and the rights of the employer/landlord
>>are also involved, this argument doesn't go very far. 

>ACCUSED??????
>Of *what*, pray tell?

Of discriminating. What else were we talking about?

>>Probably, but I haven't said anything about anarchy. Or do you assume
>>that anarchy is the only alternative, to complete government regulation
>>of every aspect of life?

>Then how do you propose dealing with the problem? I wasn't suggesting that
>you were an anarchist, Frank - I think you haven't thought the problem
>through well enough to have reached any conclusions at all. If you don't
>authorize the government to deal with discrimination then your only 
>alternative is private action, isn't it? Given that the people who
>are being discriminated against are at a disadvantage (otherwise they
>wouldn't be the victims of discrimination, now would they), what are their 
>alternatives for private action? Are those alternatives violent or non-violent?

An obvious choice would be strikes and boycotts. Of course, a minority
can't do this on its own, but they can't pass anti-discrimination
laws on their own either. _Both_ approaches assume a majority of the
people are simpathetic and disapprove of discrimination. In this 
respect, minorities are no more at a disadvantage organizing a 
boycott than in getting anti-discrimination laws passed.

>Saying that you don't think the government is the "best choice" to deal with 
>discrimination really begs the question. 

Actually, I didn't say that: I just asked why _you_ are assuming it
_is_ the best choice. It might be, but I don't think many people
have thought through the alternatives (E.g. are thinking from a
"That's terrible, there ought to be a law..." mentality.)

>Yes, purely voluntary methods *can* work - as long as all parties are
>rational and honest. Most people are. Some aren't. That's why we *have*
>government. Who said anything about "complete government regulation?"

Well, I was suggesting a middle ground (with some issues settled 
privately and some by law) and a remark was made about anarchy. If
any suggesting of a middle ground is considered anarchy, then 
(presumably) complete regulation is the alternative.

As for private action requiring _everyone_ to be rational and honest, 
that isn't the case at all. _Many_ people would have to be, but only
enough to put pressure on the others. Consider, for example, a boycott:
If only 10% of the people care enough to honor it, that still is a
major loss of business (enough to make an employer think twice about
discriminating.)

As for requiring some people to care (e.g. other than the victims of
discrimination), how is this any different from a law? You need
the support of a majority of the people to enact a law.

                                        Frank Crary
                                        CU Boulder