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: 26 Jan 93 18:02:34 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan26.013151.20935@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1jvtk2INNqn4@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>    >each other and since it operates within the larger sphere of   <=====
>    >the community, it must make certain concessions, in order to   <=====
>    >bring about a fairness of treatment of a large spectrum of     <=====
>    >individuals.                                                   <=====
>
>Why? This is no moral basis for this that I have ever heard. Now, YOU can
>repeat this all day long if you want, but then, all that amounts to is
>"sez you".

There is no moral basis for anything if you wish, to play moral relativity.
My position is such that, an individual and a group weigh what is best
for all concerned.  What is best can be very fundamental- best wages to
live on, health coverage, treating all customers with respect, etc.

You may not agree with the above statements, since you play the role of
moral absolutist when it comes to individual rights, and there extrapolation
to private property.  There is no basis (moral) to give anyone civil
or individual rights.  We have developed these doctrines, becuase they give
all of us fair overall treatment.  You scratch my back and I will scratch
yours.

>
>A business is an aggregate of individuals. Now, last time *I* looked, I saw
>notjhing in the USC that lessened the rights of individuals when they
>gathered together, for ANY reason.
>

What does USC have to do with anything- but I will clarify, no one is saying
that the rights of an individual are diminished, (even though in practicality
they are to some extent), but when acting as a group, there is a requirement
to bring about the best balance in fairness to all within the group and
outside the group (if the group is interacting externally).  Why? Because a
group is composed on individuals that have a large spectrum or different
ideas, and their own personal moral outlook.  As well, if this group is
interacting with individuals and/or groups outside itself, then it is also
up against a large spectrum of ideas, and other personal moral beliefs. 
We somehow then come to deal with the fact that we all can excercise our
individuals rights to the max, at the same time, if we wish to get anything 
done.  That is just reality, you only need to look at the political system
as it stands to see this... and keep in mind that I am not attaching any
conditions of right or wrong to it.  But if we look at the overall results
compared to other forms of government in the world, it is not as bad, and
needs improvement.

>
>    >work- but, this is a violation of their civil rights. What is
>    >really being said is, while I pay you, I own your time, and
>    >therefore I own you and your productivity. So what is to be
>    >said for civil rights when one is at their job?
>
>What planet are you on? Unlike the COERCIVE FUCKIN' FASCIST STATE, no one made
>you work for any business. You don't like it, go to work for one of the
>multi-hundreds-of-thousands of corporations in this country.
>

Well this is true and false.  In our society if you do not work you do
eat and you do not have a very nice life in the sense of all of the things
that you can consume.  No grant it, you can choose to be without all of
this and some people do.  But to the general mind set of the country and
I suppose the world- you must work to get what you want, and for many
this means very little in the way of choice, as to where they will work, 
and at what they will work.  I suppose you would agree to work at McDonalds
if that is all that is available? Keep in mind that many people work there
becuase there are no other jobs, and someone has to do them, right?

So in the VERY ULTIMATE SENSE of everyday survival, it is not a choice
to have one job or another, it is a necessity to have a job, to support
ones self and other's, and that only job may be washing toilets.  And they
may not like doing it.  But of course, you can always say, "Well there just
damn lucky to have a job at all."
 
>I suppose if you ever marry/enter-committed-relationship you'll bitch how
>your partner interferes with your civils rights because he/she/it wants you
>to be monogamous.

I am not, and have not bitched about having my civil rights interfered with,
it is apparent that you have misread the statements.  And are you now changing
your direction.  So if one gets married/enters-committed-relationship, it is
OK for your partner to interfere with your civil rights?  Not sure what you
are trying to say.

But keep in mind the monogamy (as an example you use) is just an agreement that
you make, but if 5 years from now you feel differently then you will have to
renegotiate your agreement about this area.

>
>This is MORE and BETTER democracy in businesses in this country than we
>have from the State. For example, if I don't like Safeway, I can go to
>Lucky's or etc. And Safeway isn't extoring money from me either to subsidize
>it.
>

Well you better look at the entire process of a business and where it
gets its goods from and how in very indirect ways- the state does subsidize
part of their operation.

>Now, where is school choice? I can't even educaye my kids at home without
>substantial State interference.
>

Well do you want your childern to be seperated so far from society that
they cannot operate effectively within it?  You are missing the point, 
public education attempts to bring about uniformity to the social structure
otherwise it falls apart.  And in the past, my agreement and my default I
believe parents gave up their childern to the schooling system, and basically
didn't worry about it, until they found out little Johnny can't read.

>
>You have a classic Marxist view of things. A contract is a more formal
>method of dealing with the ways we humans interact withe each other.
>A business man TRADES -- he/she does NOT "take" -- only communists,
>socialists, and other fascists do that.

You had better figure out what Marx, etc. really said.  Nobody in these
systems as they are laid out takes anything- it is a structural agreement
between the people involved.

And capitialism hasn't had it share of taking?  Give me a break- wake up
and look around you, they are taking from you all of the time. It is called
profit to start with- and many take it for their own personal use, want
etc.  And many people like a classic sheep being led around, glady give
it to them.

>
>I've yet to have Safeway take ONE SINGLE FUCKING THING FROM ME. The State?
>Well, we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars here so far ...
>

Safeway has taken your money- and like the state- you did not get equal
value and return for your money or equivalence for work done.

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

It was- weird that some people just can't see damage for the pollution.