🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gall-0604982332010001@usrts1m14.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca 
(Norman Gall) wrote:

>In article <6gc3ui$1e6$1@usenet87.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com
>(HiThere) wrote:
>> Am I to  assume you _have_ no reasoned rebuttal? 
>
>No.
>

I agree. I apologize for jumping the gun. :-)

>> You could, of course, rest inactive by 
>> staing something like *they weren't worth responding to* but given that
>I have 
>> provided detailed counter-arguments to the positions you and others have 
>> raised, I think that won't exactly wash.
>
>Well, it only fails to wash if your detailed counter-arguments have any
>worth.  Sicne they do, to a very limited degree, I'll indulge you.
>

Thanks 

<snipped-->
>> ----------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> You see, the issue really isn't about homosexuality or acting on a 
>> prejudice--it _is_ about reserving the ability to take and act on what should
> 
>> be private decisions based on ones values. 
>
>Of course, this begs the question.  Are these really 'private decisions
>[like custard or ice cream for dessert] based on one's values'? Having a
>homosexual relationship with a consenting adult partner certainly counts,
>but not hiring someone on the sole grounds that they are homosexual (or
>Christian or Buddhist) is not a strictly private matter.
>

Allow me to respond in the *relevance* posts.

>> Certainly, it would be wrong to 
>> force people _not_ to rent to gay folks or not to hire them. 
>
>Agreed.
>
>> What it seems 
>> most don't understand is that it is equally wrong to _force_ people _to_ rent
> 
>> to gay folks or to hire them, too.
>
>Why? This is a wholly unsubstantiated claim.

..to the *relevance* posts.

>
>> Two distinctions have to be made:
>> 
>> One is that the *instigation of force* is wrong. It's wrong to start the 
>> physical fight, and it is wrong to be the first to cheat. 
>
>However, in enforcing the CCC, we can use force to detain someone under
>suspicion of a crime, even when it is a non-violent crime, like purgery -
>are you going to argue that this is also unjustified.
>

No. Sanctions against perjury are applied after the fact _and_ peerjury _is_ 
an initiation of force akin to fraud.

>> You have $10 and I 
>> have $10 dollars. I don't give you my $10. Have I _hurt_ you in any way? Is 
>> there something that you _had_ that has been taken? Nope. You is where you 
>> was--no better, no worse. Moral: not providing you with something is
>_not_ the 
>> same as taking something away. Not providing you with rental accomodation or 
>> hiring you is _ simply not giving you something. That's different from 
>> stealing--that's when you _had_ something but you don't anymore. 
>
>This is a faulty analogy. I have no claim to your $10.  However, we do
>have a claim, each one to another, to be treated fairly - i.e. to have
>irrelevant factors ignored.

..to the relevance posts.


 If you think we have no such claim then we've
>got a serious problem in jusitifying both the civil and criminal law. Not
>specific civil and criminal laws, but the idea that we can hold people
>civilly or criminally liable.
>
>> You don't like how some people will behave, so you tell the government
>to pass 
>> a law making it so people have to do what you want. Fine, you now have what 
>> you want. Sometime later, a number of folks change their mind--so _they_ vote
> 
>> to make it against the law _to_do_ what you want. What can you say about it? 
>> Not much...it was _you_ who decided to give the power to the government  
>> rather than protecting the right to make your own decision.
>
>However, this is an argument against the CCC in whole. 

Yep

> We have laws
>requiring people to tell the truth when questioned by police and in a
>court of law. Are you arguing that all of these laws are unjustified?
>

No.

>> Who's been burned lately? Well--one sort of ironic one was... the anti-porn 
>> feminists were really astonished and upset when they realized that the laws 
>> they had supported and insisted on having passed  meant _their_ erotica
>(porn) 
>> was subject to the same narow-mindedness they were foisting on men. Ooops.
>
>So what? They were mistaken.


It just illustrates the danger.

>
>> This is not meant as a slam against feminists--they are certainly not unique 
>> in this regard. All sorts of lobby groups and issue-based organizations
>on the 
>> right, the left and much of what passes for the center are all running around
> 
>> hell-bent to get the government to make other folks do what they want them to
> 
>> do. And to do so, they are _losing_ the right to act on their own decisions. 
>> The subject matter is now the province of the state--it has been removed from
> 
>> the arena of free choice.
>
>Right.
>
>> The state can just as easily pass a law making it mandatory that people
>_must_ 
>> not rent to homosexuals as it can to make it mandatory _to_ rent to 
>> homosexuals.
>
>So what? Unless you are questioning the idea of passing laws writ large,
>this missed the point entirely.
>

Not exactly, but I am questioning any number of laws writ large--but not 
bevcause they _are_ writ large, There are other criteria.


>> The point is: start taking control of your own life and stop working so 
hard 
>> to control the lives of others.
>
>I concur, but the answer isn't to abolish all laws, but to come to an
>understanding as to what factors are relevant for which decisions and make
>laws based on those principles. 


Yes!
>
 Interestingly enough, we have such a
>document - imperfect as it is - the Consitution.
>

A decent, but far from adequate, try.

>> I have no interest in forcing bigots to rent to me or to hire me. Those 
>> cretins might end up a democratic _majority_ some day--it's happened before, 
>> and I sure as hell don't want _them_ having power over my rental
>accomodations 
>> or job prospects.
>
>Exactly what we have a Constitution with principles which dictate which
>laws can take away certain freedoms (like my freedom to kill you and take
>your property with impunity) and hand out other ones (like the right not
>to be arbitrarily detained.) I can sympathise with your view, but I think
>it misses the crucial role the Constitution plays in mitigating the power
>of the Legislature.
>

No it doesn't miss the role--I think it fills the role poorly.'
>-------------------------
>
>So it seems that you are arguing that the legislature has no right to pass
>any law (or more simply, should not pass any law) which restricts what one
>can do.  But since this is the  very function of both the civil and
>criminal law, you must be committed to advocating the abolition of both of
>these institutions.  If not, I have no idea what your position amounts to.
>If you are, I think we have nothing left to talk abou there since the
>issue of the Authority of the State has a tremendous literature and
>literally hundreds of arguments to wade through. 
>

Ah, yes--there are--but the essentials aren't that hard to come to grips with 
:-)

>If we ignore your core premiss of your argument, which leads to this
>strange dilemma, we are left with deciding upon which acts should not be
>permitted. One of the things we prohibit (and compensate for if committed)
>is negligence with other people's property. Another thing we prohibit is
>using irrelevant criteria for certain acts (like not hiring, renting, on
>the grounds of religion or sexual orientation).
>

See *relevance*

>So, the reason that I failed to respond to these arguments is that I
>simply thought that it would take more time than I wanted to devote to
>explain my position.
>

I appreciate your time, Norm.

Thank you.


Ron