From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:47:23 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <JLqXXB2w165w@surfcty.com>, rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin)
wrote:
> 
> 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.

I have long observed that Libertarians refuse to distinguish between
private and public activities of individuals; now I find that at least one
of them can't even distinguish between sex and money-making.

> This is the exemplary attitude of the
> socialist: protect my rights, but restrict those of that bad group over
> there.

This is, I fear exemplary of all sorts of people, including (no matter what
they say) Libertarians.

> 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?

What's so wrong with it is that renting apartments to the general public is
a business activity, while getting it on with a member of the same sex is
not -- it is private.  Libertarians pretend that the distinction cannot be
made, but in fact all human societies have made this kind of distinction
throughout recorded history; and it is simply not the case that regulating
public businesses leads to regulating people's sex lives.  In fact, many
societies have regulated business far more than we do, while at the same
time allowing much greater sexual freedom, not to mention other kinds of
private, personal freedom.

[coram populo wrote]
> > ...So what is to be said for civil rights when one is at their job?

> What's to be said for them is that they're irrelevant in your
> hypothetical example.

Spoken like a true Libertarian, with no regard for the idea that a person's
individual, private rights are ALWAYS in force and always completely
relevant to whatever situation is at hand.

> Why should an employer pay for an employee who
> doesn't measure up?  That's what you would force on them by the silly
> claim that by demanding an employee WORK at work (imagine that!), an
> employer is curtailing that person's civil rights.

Excuse me, but the example had nothing to do with not working -- it had to
do with exercising essential freedoms *while at work.*

> This is no more
> onerous a requirement than, say, an employer prohibiting smoking within
> the workplace. Certainly, the employee can exercise his political voice
> outside the workplace.  So, the employer has taken nothing away from
> the employee.

Except his political freedom, while at work (i.e. most of his waking hours
in many cases).

Libertarians always seem to turn out favoring a very theoretical sort of
*personal* rights, i.e. rights for individuals not engaged in business: we
can exercise our personal rights freely only when not involved in anyone
else's business activity.  Mostly that means only when we are at home with
the doors and windows shut.  The rest of the time, we have our rights but
may exercise them only at the pleasure of bosses, landlords, property
owners, etc.

On the other hand, the rights of someone engaged in business are *property*
rights, and therefore utterly sacred and not subject to any restrictions.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!