From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Homophobia (really not about  Homeschooling)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:17:48 GMT

In article <C0M6vv.EMn@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris) writes:

>Roger Lustig writes:
>  So they have the right to punish employees for freedom of association, 
>  punishment that, if carried out generally enough, leads to starvation.

>Yes, and musicology, if carried out generally enough, leads to starvation,
>too. 

More evidence of interest in serious discussion, eh?  

>There is precisely zero reason to believe that either will, in fact,
>be carried out generally enough at all. 

Horseshit.  I have already given the example of the Japanese caste
system.  In the US, voluntary institutional discrimination is still
widespread.  Ask black friends of mine who recently tried to get a 
mortgage.

>I do not accept your premise that
>those legions of Reaganite Republican employers are zombie-eyed closet-KKKers
>just itching to lynch members of all minority groups. 

My premise?  Go stuff it.  You're obviously not interested in this
discussion at all, and are just playing with yourself now.

>Or that even a sizable
>number of them are out to fire gay nightwatchmen. As we have

How many must there be before the hurt is real?  

>agreed (I think), that would be stupid and wrong. I think that it's exactly
>your brand of liberalism that is driving a whole bunch of decent
>people into alliance with the Pat Buchanons.

I don't know many decent people in alliance with Pat Buchanan.  I
do know lots who respond to his race-baiting, his gay-baiting, 
his Jew-baiting, and his fondness for Fascist approaches.

Sorry, but the above makes it clear to me that my "brand of
liberalism" is a closed book to you, and will remain so as
long as you cover your eyes whenever I discuss it.  

It is based on REAL problems of the CURRENT world, and takes 
those, not an abstract political system based on simple assumptions 
about human nature, as its basis.

>What is so wrong about letting the employment contract be freely negotiable
>between both parties? 

Can you say "horse and rabbit stew"?  When the employer has thousands of
times more resources, the freedom in the negotiations is entirely his/hers.

>If it's in the contract the employer can't fire
>the nightwatchman for gayness, then if he fires the nightwatchman on that
>ground, he can certainly be sued for breach of contract.

Who would hire anyone who insisted on a long list of no-fire reasons?  
Nobody -- unless there were some protection to bring a little equity 
into the relationship.

>Oh yeah, ``economic coercion''. You seem to prefer the police kind.

How many divisions does the EEOC have?  Another stupid, cheap shot from
you -- as usual, easier than argument.  Sorry, but the police power of 
the state can, in a democratic environment, be wielded wisely.  No doubt,
it would be a bad idea to have *you* wielding it, but somehow I don't 
think that's likely to happen.

Mike, the coercion I'm talking about isn't some fantasy.  It's real and
it's happened for a long time.  Often it was supported by government --
but it doesn't go away just by making a few rules and saying, OK, we're
all going to be Rational Agents and Economic Men now.  

Go on all you want about guns, but you will never convince me that 
public education is the Gulag, or that the tax-supported library is 
another Auschwitz.

>  Sieg heil to you too, pal.

>I believe you owe me for that one, Roger.

Nope, sorry.  Your attitude is comforting to all those who look for
reasons to impose bigotry, bigotry even unto murder.  And, as the 
above amply shows, you have no interest even in finding out what my position
is.

In case you'd never thought about it, absence of government can lead 
to a replacement government -- say, some employers getting together.
That is, too little government creates a vacuum, and allows the legitimate
regime to be overrun or ignored.  Government happens, in other words.  
I fear the governments that your puritanical refusal to enforce the
protection of liberty will lead to.

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books