Subject:
|
Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:23:50 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera*saynotospam*.com
|
Viewed:
|
1865 times
|
| |
|
|
<37D72389.74A66C33@io.com> <FHu88B.8It@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote:
>
> Sproaticus <jsproat@io.com> wrote
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > 1 - note that I DO support discrimination (that is, the right to
> > > discriminate) by private individuals... just not by governments or their
> > > agents.
> >
> > Amen. It just raises my ire when someone is forced into some action because
> > some First Amendment Nazis threaten court action to get it.
>
> I'm afraid I have to disagree with both of you. Take hate crimes. I do think
> they should be discriminated against. You fry someone for a string of 1st
> degree murders? OK, so do something worse for a string of dead Jews.
I'm not following you here, Moz. To me, when I say discrimination by a
private individual, what I am referring to is the decision not to enter
into a voluntary association with another private individual. Note the
use of "voluntary". A free association must be voluntary on both sides
or it isn't free.
Hate crimes seem to fall somewhat outside that, wouldn't you say?
Beating, stealing, torturing, or murdering a person is a crime, not
something one would volunteer to receive, and therefore an act of
discrimination in the sense I am using it. Crimes are crimes and there
is no justification for any of them and no reason to be sparing in the
punishment for any of the.
Or are you saying that the crime is worse when the motivation is dislike
or prejudice rather than malice or greed? That's rather a different
thesis. I'm not sure I agree. Doesn't that seem discriminatory to
victims who were murdered merely for their money?? Governments should
not discriminate for any reason.
>
> On a lower level, should the government be allowed to help a business do
> something the government is explicitly forbidden to do?
No. Governments should not be helping businesses do ANYTHING. (except in
the more abstract sense of providing a framework, the rule of law, in
which all businesses may more successfully conduct their lawful
business.)
> Whether that be
> toppling foreign governments or refusing service to blacks, should they be
> allowed to do it?
They in this context being governments? No. Not in any case. Governments
should not interfere in the affairs of other governments unless directly
attacked (or otherwise clearly threatened0 and should not discriminate
in any way.
They in this context being businesses? It depends. No government should
foster a private individual interfering in the internal affairs of
another government, but neither should it prevent it, so long as it is
clear that the individual is on their own. (I feel the recent Kosovo
tragedy would have been less severe if private individuals had not been
prevented from arming the KLA, but I cannot be sure.)
But when you say 'help' a business refuse service to blacks, we need to
delve into the situation more. If a business is not engaged in commerce
that is a government sanctioned monopoly (recall my thesis that there
are no natural ones) and the government has not erected artificial
barriers to entry, it is the perogative of the business, under the
principle of voluntary association, to do business with whomever it
chooses. Can you be more specific in your example?
> Should you be required to date ethnic groups pro rata by their presence
> in the general population? No, that's silly. Should you be punished for
> being exceptionally rude to Slovaks? Yes, that's unreasonable behaviour,
> worse than simple rudeness because it's group hate based behaviour.
Define exceptionally rude, please? We do not have a right not to be
annoyed by the statements of others. Slovaks have the same rights as
anyone else, as do those who do not like Slovaks for whatever insipid
and inane reason.
>
> The milder the bias the harder it is to defend it, or banning it. But
> when we're talking serious crime does anyone really believe that killing
> abortion doctors is no worse than killing random strangers?
Yes. I do believe that. Both are equally reprehensible, both are equally
intolerable, both are something that, were I present and carrying, I
would take direct action to attempt to stop if I in my best judgment
felt I could have a positive influence.
I do in fact believe that a murder is reprehensible no matter the
motive. And I have discussed why I don't think hate crime laws are
necessary. In the US, if the police would spend less time poking into
victimless crimes, perhaps they'd do better at actually stopping the
real crimes. More laws are not needed, the basic common laws against
murder, rape, assault, battery, theft etc are just fine. Merely enforce
them instead of dreaming up new, confusing ones that take time to figure
out where they apply, time better spent stopping muggings.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
276 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
