From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 15:48:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.143515.545@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>Punishment is a form of force, and we give government a monopoly of
>force.  In societies other than The Moronic Inferno (the USA), job loss
>is not thought to be a sort of "punishment" that can be meted-out at
>will by any employer; it is difficult to fire people in such societies
>precisely because it is recognized that excluding people from jobs as
>"punishment" is a form of economic force majeure which should NOT be
>deregulated.

"Excluding" people from jobs? You seem to be saying that once
my boss decided to hire me, he owes me a continued livelihood.
Why does my boss owe me a livelihood any more than you do, Ed?
Because he gave me a chance when I was not really qualified
for my job? Because he works his tail off keeping our company
afloat and therefore keeping my job in existence? It seems to
me that he's done a hell of a lot more for me than you ever
have and for this he owes me a living while you don't?

>Deregulating punishment, for example in allowing small businessmen the
>right to fire "for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all"
>simply produces a call on the part of victims for better regulation.  In
>the case of job loss, it has created a litigation industry in which
>employees sue their ex-employers for unjust firing.  I've been present
>at unjust firings (for example, I was an innocent bystander when a woman
>was publically fired by a video store for being "too friendly with the
>customers") and I find the victims' reactions understandable; if you
>decry the litigation industry created by their real perception of
>injustice, then you should support legislation restricting unjust
>termination.

No. We have *always* had a system where employees where hired
at will. They could be fired by their boss for any reason
whatsoever. What has caused the boom in litigation is this
idea you seem to have that once someone is hired for a job, they
are entitled to that job at their employer's expense unless you
agree that the employee did something so horrific that you would
have fired him ifhe were your employee. Once an employer needs
to show cause to fire someone, there will be an industry set
up to prove people were fired unjustly. All more regulation will
do is provide more avenues for someone who is fired to contest the
firing. It will lead to more litigation, not less.

And Ed, you find the victims' reaction understandable. Do you also
find the business owner's position understandable? Or do you see 
all businesses as run by a member of the power elite, a white man 
who already has more than enough money? If he doesn't want to share
his money with one of his poor employees than he is a selfish piece
of shit and deserves whatevers coming to him...

>Perhaps this "telepathy" is nothing more than reading comprehension,
>hein?  I realize that the favorite way of reading, both in national
>politix and on the net, is a sort of crude scan for keywords:
>
>     IF find(instring,"gay people") then DO
>        SAY "My opponent don't got no fambly values"
>     END

I hope you don't confuse *anyone* in these discussions with Pat
Buchanan. He and his ilk are driving most of the libertarian-minded
people I know to vote for Clinton this time around. Of course, you
wouldn't notice that. Anybody a little less "sympathetic to the
working class" than you is indistinguishable from Goebbels.



-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
          	Some of my best friends are men.
        --- Lisa Nee in "American Women Deserve a Tax Break."