From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:52:44 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov10.001131.17521@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.155743.25871@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>>Just out of curiosity, and agreeing that such descrimination is a 
>>>terrible thing, why is preventing or discouraging it automatically
>>>the role of law and government? Certainly there are other ways to
>>>prevent it, assuming that people in general really oppose the 
>>>practice 
>
>>Just out of curiosity, and agreeing that armed robbery is a
>>terrible thins, why is preventing or discouraging it automatically
>>the role of law and government? Certainly there are other ways to
>>prevent it, assuming that people in general really oppose the practice.
>
>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?
My experience is that judges do *not* look kindly upon "frivolous"
suits.

>
>>Well, Frank, the Declaration of Independence states that the sole, legitimate
>>purpose of government is to "secure [the] rights]" of the governed. 
>>The Preamble of the Constitution states that the purposes of the document
>>are (among other things) to "establish Justice,...,promote the general
>>Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...". How's that for a reason?
>
>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?

>The preamble
>states certain purposes, but the Constitution goes on the grant the 
>government powers in certain, limited areas. I'm not suggesting
>the government should _never_ protect the rights of the people, 
>I'm just wondering why everyone assumes it is the _best_
>choice to do so, in the case of discrimination.
>
>>Certainly, it's possible to adopt other models: the anarchist model of
>>"voluntary associations" has certain attractions, but I suspect that
>>it degenerates into feudalism  in no time flat. 
>
>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?
Do you expect them to give up graciously when non-violence fails? 
Saying that you don't think the government is the "best choice" to deal with 
discrimination really begs the question. 

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?"
Frank, it's perfectly within your rights to dislike any group of people you 
choose. It's perfectly within CFV's rights to dislike any group *they*
choose. It's fine with me if CFV expresses their views. It is *not*
fine with me if they incorporate that dislike into law.  

Steve
Newsgroups: co.general