🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gall-0704981304270001@usrts1m7.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca 
(Norman Gall) wrote:

>In article <6gdm25$i7q$1@usenet88.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com
>(HiThere) wrote:
>
>> In article <gall-0604982332010001@usrts1m14.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca 
>> (Norman Gall) wrote:
>
>> >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.
>
>The sanctions are, but the threat of force is present before (just as it
>is in the case of forcing landowners to not consider sexual orientation in
>deliberations as to whom they will rent). Denying someone a fair shake
>(without adequate grounds) is prejudice and an initiation of force akin to
>entering into a contract in bad faith.
>

How is it *bad faith* when the terms of the proposed contract haven't even 
been discussed? It's bad faith if the bigot says he will not 
discriminate, or leads someone to believe he won't--but it is simple honesty 
if he states that he will. The assumption that he won't discriminate is an 
assumption that is--if anything--based on terms set beforehand, by 
others--with no regard to the honesty or personally held values of the bigot.
 

>You want to argue that there is no relevant realtionship between the
>landowner and the potential tenent *until* a contract has been signed.  It
>seems to me that you want to argue that before usch time nothing is owned
>by either party to the other.

Nope--the apartment or the job _is_ owned, by the landlord or business owner. 
If you meant *owed* then I think it's fair to expect honesty (else we have 
fraud or misrepresentation) but that is all.


> I would argue that you owe them the moral
>duty of trating them at all times as an end-in-themselves rther than a
>means to an end; this would require treating them fairly.  And that they
>simply 'don't like fags' isn't good enough.
>

But isn't the applicant treating the potential employer as a means to an 
end--and what's unfair about that? Should an employee be forced to work for a 
bigot?

>> >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.
>
>How do you reconcile asserting an argument that questions the authority of
>the CCC *and* say that you are not arguing against laws which are
>contained therein? This is prima facie contradictory.
>

No, it's not. Right and wrong exist independant of the CCC.

>> >So what? They were mistaken.
>
>> It just illustrates the danger.
>
>But this is a danger in any system that is democratic to any extent.  Only
>in some sort of totalitarian regime that bought the notion that the gov't
>has no authority to tell anyone what to do would this not be a danger.
>

There is an non-totalitarian alternative--and that is to constitutionally 
limit the extent and power of government to it's core function of protecting 
people against the initiation of force. My overall point is that although it 
can be argued that there is a proper role for gov't (although David Freidman 
puts a telling case to the contrary in his *Machinery of Freedom* {much data 
available on the web})--you are right that this is a danger in democratic 
systems because such sytems can become effectively totalitarian by majority 
fiat.

>
>> >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.
>
>Well yes.  It seems to me that the criteria that you are using is whether
>the law 'tells people what to do'. But even regulative law does this.  "If
>yu want to get married, do this."
>

No, that's not the criteria, The criteria is whether or not the law 
inhibits action when what they are doing is not an initiation of force. I do 
not support the government asserting regulations on what is a *proper* 
marriage, for instance--I think they should saty out of it.


>> >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!
>
>Right, but the principle you seem to be advocating implies the abolistion
>of all laws.
>

Nope.

>I hope that the other post clears up this criterion.  I really would like
>to know what principles you think sorts this out to your satisfaction
>*and* retains the authority of a Gov't to pass laws.
>
 For what could be termed the minarchist position--read Leoni. For the 
anarchist position (which actually still includes *laws* of a sort) see 
Freidman.