From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:00:18 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <JLqXXB2w165w@surfcty.com> rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
>In article <1jvtk2INNqn4@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
>(coram populo) writes:
>
>> In article <1993Jan24.200107.8864@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>> >A: I'd like to have sex with you.      A: I'd like to rent your room.
>> >B: No thanks, you're not what I want.  B: No thanks, you're not what I want.
>> >A: Oh well, too bad.                   A: Discrimination!!!!
>> >    
>> >1. 80% of all "landlords" in California are individuals, not businesses.
>> 
>What this boils down to is the idea that that freedom of choice within
>sexual intercourse should be a protected right, while within economic
>intercourse it should not. This is the exemplary attitude of the
>socialist: protect my rights, but restrict those of that bad group over
>there. If the majority passes laws for the regulation of some people's
>activities (in this case, economic ones), then they may come knocking
>down your door to see what goes on behind it (in Georgia's case, the
>anti-sodomy laws).  In other words, if the majority in certain
>California cities happen to believe in mild forms of socialism and place
>(IMHO, unconstitutional) limits on rent, what's so wrong with a majority
>in Georgia who happen to believe that homosexuality is a sin passing
>anti-sodomy laws?
>

So we should take all restrictive laws both in personal and business sense
off the books- allow whatever a business want's to do.  The question of
boiling down- is not about your incorrect defintion of socialsim, and of
course it is very unfashionable to mention socialsim, but rather how do
we decide what the limits are to both personal liberty and business liberty.
In some cases we have seen what happens in the business sphere, when left
unchecked.

Therefore, you would have to agree that a business which decides to exercise
a discriminatory attitude, must be allowed (as in personal civil rights) all
forms of discrimation.

For instance, it would be acceptable for a business, not to pay one empolyee's
benefits for health insurance, while paying another employees, and give no
particular reason.  Or pay one employee half the salary of another employee
for the same job and performance level. In the social contact of any society,
people look for and expect, to a certain degree, fairness in treatment.

 Let's face one fact, if we want complete unfettered rights for individuals
and businesses, then these things are going to happen, and people are not
going to like it, and eventually groups of people will start building another
set of laws and regulations. 

It would be interesting to get responses from people that are not clouded
by ideas such as socialism, facist, communist etc.  This is at best, a process
of simply labelling and therefore dismissing other's ideas, becuase if it
smells of any ideas then it must be.

>> 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.
>
>That's true.  It's also true that landlords doing so lose business by
>turning down well-qualified people who happen to be in groups they
>dislike.  That's their problem.

Well in certain parts of this country and city's this is not true.  
Escpecially if it is a renters market.  And in just the reverse state,
their are landlords who own tenements and rent to people that they
feel they can basically take advantage of- high rents, poor facilities,
rundown dwellings, etc.  but this is business afterall.  ANd so what
if landlord X charges $800.00 a month for a room, with no toilet, or
broken windows.  It is all just business.

I also want to point out that in an area where I live, landlords could
easily do what they wanted, discriminate (and they do- I know from personal
experience) and still have no problems renting their properties and
making their profits.  Real estate markets are always changing, but people
in general, always need a place to live.  So when I hear the cries and
moans of the property owner, I do not feel to badly for them...