In article <pdb059-210493135728@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov> pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:  A very well put together post. I disagree with several key points, but the post is an excellent one with which to "engage in discourse":      >There has been much discussion recently about the right to     >freedom of association. Mr. Cramer and Mr. Ronzone appear to     >take an absolutist position on this right--that it is a     >fundamental human right, perhaps the fundamental human right,     >and that it supersedes other rights, such as the right to an     >equal opportunity. Others feel that a right to an equal     >opportunity outweighs the right to freedom of association,     >and thus we have the never-ending debate that flares up     >repeatedly.  Freedom of Association (FOA) involves the MUTUAL and VOLUNTARY agreement of two or more people.  Right to Equal Opportunity (lets call it REO) involves coercion in all cases (by definition).       >A major problem is that neither of these rights are     >explicitly declared or protected in the Constitution or in     >the Declaration of Independence, although both can be derived     >from these documents. Unfortunately, this means that the     >debate will never end, because neither side can conclu-     >sively prove the validity of their view--it becomes solely a     >matter of personal philosophy.  Yes, there is much debate. But no, it can end, with once and for all recognition of these rights. (Well, not totally 100% perfect end, but end in the same way that there is no worldwide disagreement that say, murder, is a crime).       >My personal opinion is that the real answer lies somewhere in     >between. I regard both of these rights as fundamental human     >rights which, unfortu- nately, come into direct conflict with     >one another. Which is stronger depends on the given     >situation.  Hmm, there is even MORE discusion about religion. Should  we take a  "somewhere in between" approach towards the State & a State recognized religion? The first amendment, is so, uh, so absolutist you know.      >For example, if the owner of a "mom-and-pop" store wishes to     >hire an employee to help out, their right to freedom of     >association outweighs the rights of their job applicants to     >an equal opportunity. They should be free to hire whomever     >they choose, using whatever criteria they choose, without any     >government intervention at all.     >     >Similarly, if a family wishes to rent out a bedroom in their     >home, or a garage apartment, or something similar, then their     >right to freedom of association outweighs the rights of their     >prospective tenants to an equal opportunity.     >     >If, on the other hand, IBM, a multi-national corporation with     >275,000 employees, publicly owned, and operated by a board of     >directors, wishes to hire additional employees, then whose     >freedom of association are we protecting? The board of     >directors? The other employees? The owners of the stock? In     >this case, the applicant's right to an equal opportunity     >outweighs the right to freedom of association, and we, as a     >society, can ask IBM to use only those criteria which are     >relevant to the specific task.  Why? Says who? Why can mon & pop have FOA, but IBM be forced, and force is the correct word here, to have REO? As purchase of IBM is voluntary, then there are very well defined procedures on how IBM chooses to do some things and chooses to do other things. Why not let those same procedures work for employment policies?       >Similarly, if a landlord owns a number of apartment buildings     >in which he does not live, and which are managed by an     >independent management agency, then whose freedom of     >association are we protecting? If the owner does not live in     >his buildings and has no contact with his tenants, then the     >prospective tenant's right to an equal opportunity outweighs     >the right to freedom of association, and we, as a society,     >can ask the owner to use only those criteria which are     >relevant to "good" tenants. (I've put "good" in quotation     >marks because I really don't want to be drawn off into the     >side issue of what constitutes a good tenant.)  Why does this tenant have an "option" (I won't call it a right) to destroy the FOA of the landlord? If the landlord and the tenant can't agree, then they both can cease from using each other's property.  Suddenly, by arm waving, by magic, a landlord does not have FOA. And on what basis does the FOA of the landlord "disappear"?  It seems that vague terms like "no contact with tenants" suffice.  Well, I think FOA is one our most important rightts (in the top 2-3), and by golly, if the State is going to make it suffer, I sure would like to see the heinous crime that justifies the removal of this right.  I don't think "no contact" with the tenats is even a crime, much less something that should cause severe interference with important rights.      >I suspect that the majority of the people in this country     >agree with my position on these extreme cases, particularly     >if they are presented in this manner. I don't know if Mr.     >Ronzone or Mr. Cramer would agree--I suspect not. In any     >case, additional problems arise when we try to apply     >guidelines for the middle ground. What if the company has 10     >employees, or 100, or 1000? Where do we draw the line between     >protecting the right to freedom of association and protecting     >the right to an equal opportunity?  Rights are not defined by majority/mob choice. FOA is an absolute. REO is a fancy name for thuggery, for racism, and coercion.      >The difficulty is that any line we draw will, of necessity,     >be artificial. And any legislation resulting will be flawed.     >In the past, the government has usually tried to pass laws     >which referred to the number of employees hired by the     >company--e.g., any company with more than xxx employees was     >affected by the law. Those with fewer were unaffected.  Of course it would be. You dimly see that the line must be artifiacial, because FOA is the only right. Just like a State religion -- you can't jsutify that either.      >Generally, I believe that if we do not have any regulations     >affecting these rights, then the right to freedom of     >association will be stronger. On the other hand, many of the     >regulations protect the right to an equal opportunity too     >much, weakening the right to freedom of association.     >     >I don't believe there is a satisfactory solution which will     >please everybody. A solution that I came up with is to use     >publicly owned vs. privately owned as the dividing line. If     >the company remains privately owned, then the owners should     >be free to do whatever they want with their company. If the     >company becomes publicly owned, then the public has a right     >to ask the company to submit to additional regulation.  Why? I assume that when you say "publicly owned", you are talking about those quasi-State companys that do NOT have shareholders.  The companies on the Fortune 500, for example, are all privately owned. They can give you a list of all of their owners. They have no "anonymous", unknown to them, owners.       >By the way, the above analysis is based on the assumption     >that the right to freedom of association and the right to an     >equal opportunity are both fundamental human rights of equal     >importance. Since this is entirely a matter of faith, not     >subject to any "proof", I do not choose to even try to     >establish this. You either accept it or you don't.     >     >Any comments?  FOA can be derived by any two rational people, on a basis that neither has evil, malicious, or murderous intent towards the others.  In short, agreement is mutual, or not at all.  Your REO on the other hand, lives only by accepting coercion, the gun, into the situation. And that is self-destructive of the whole argument, because it is based only on might makes right. Sort of like saying, "nobody has a right to live", whereupon I whip out a gun and shoot you dead -- end of argument.   --  There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of environmental disaster. Weird, eh?