Subject:
|
Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Sep 1999 06:27:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2062 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote
> Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote:
> > 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.
In that context I still think there is a boundary to be drawn. Is this
a personal relationship, like friendship, or a public one, like offering
haircuts? IMO anything in the public side *must* be nondiscriminatory.
You can't make blacks sit at the back of the bus, you can't allow only
men to belong to the chamber of commerce. That may not be ideologically
pure, but it is a reaction to what happens in practice if you let people
behave as they would like to.
> Note the use of "voluntary". A free association must be voluntary on both
> sides or it isn't free.
Sorry, I missed the bit where discrimination can only happen inside a
free association. You seem to have introduced it only now. Originally
you said:
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.
So, do you also support the right to discriminate in involuntary associations?
Say, bus companies. Hard to argue that the association is voluntary if
there's only one provider (as is often the case at least in NZ).
> 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.
I assume this is hyperbole rather than rationale. Or should you be hung for
the crime of ... speeding?
> Or are you saying that the crime is worse when the motivation is dislike
> or prejudice rather than malice or greed?
Yes. There is a chilling effect present in hate crimes that does not exist
in most other crimes. Debatably things like rape could be hate crimes or
not, since most rapists select victims by at least gender, if not also
other characteristics.
> 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.)
Who builds the roads, Larry? Who stops foreign businesses using subsidies
from their governments to destroy local industries? Where does government
purchase its requirements, if it may not put money in the pockets of
business?
Moz: should govts be allowed to hire people to do what they can't?
> They in this context being governments? No. Not in any case. Governments
> should not interfere in the affairs of other governments
You missed my question. If the govt is not allowed to do X, are they
allowed to hire someone else to do it?
> 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?
OK. Take hospitals. The government has no place running a hospital, right?
Now, say that for some reason it decides that it needs the services provided
by a hospital in say, Pearl Harbour. Now, it would be naughty of the government
to set up its own hospital and allow only white men to use it. So should the
government be allowed to contract with a hospital to give a "bulk discount"
to government employees, but only to the white ones? Any large user of
services will typically make these sorts of deals, and so should government.
On an unrelated note:
> 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.
So you favour mercenaries hired by civilians. Hmm. Should governments
permit this, and should they be allowed to encourage it? Can I buy illegal
weapons because it's for a good cause? What difference is there between
the actions of a democratically elected government and the actions of a
majority of its people? And should I be allowed to send guns to the USA
to support the Kansas Farmers for a Benovolent Dictatorship? Why not?
Moz
(I hope there is no real group called that)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
