From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:59:35 GMT

In article <casseres-260193142645@missmolly.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
    >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.

That's all right David -- we've all known that you can't distinguish anything
beyond Politiaclly Correct(tm) sloganeering.

For example, surveys have repeatedly shown that for women, the economic
sucess of a potential mate ranks above sexual satisfaction ability of the
mate.

An individual has a tremendous range of criteria in associating with another
person, ranging from mere physical attraction for a momentary fling to
a whole range of complex criteria for an attempt at life long mating.

Of course, perhaps you are "stuck" at one end of this range and can't
comprehend the other possibilities.

In any case, most ALL longer term relationships DO place high consideration
on the economic success of the partner.

And indeed, we as individuals can have a range of relationships with
other individuals. For example, dating someone at work is a case of
how a business relationship can evolve into a sexual relationship and
then perhaps into a more complex relationship that involves personal
economic interests.

You view, is uh, so PC(tm).

    >>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.

OK flatulence breath -- other than limiting initiating of coercion, just
WHAT rights do the Libertarians seek to restrict?

Of course, as your are dead wrong, you won't try to answer this one.
More assertions, ZERO examples. Typical.


    >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.

You are DEAD wrong. Regulation is consistent AND correlated with ALL
aspects of human behaviour. Foir example, when America went into it's
"worst" regulatory mode (the forst ten years of this century), all aspects
of life were regulated.

Personal use of cocaine and opium and heroin was made illegal, the Sullivan
act was enacted, the first anti-trust bullshit was legislated, most states
enacted the so-called "living in sin" laws, California made it illegal for
a "white" to marry an "Asian", and so on.

As usal, you haven't tried to check anything before posting.

    >>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.


Not at all.

Why don't you just admit that you are a fascist.

YOU want the right to say, fuck anything you want.

But, you also want the ability (it's not a right) to FORCE someone to
rent to you, AGAINST their will, if they don't like what you fuck.

In short, you want it all your way, and to hell with anybody that disagrees.



-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc