🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6gc3ui$1e6$1@usenet87.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com
(HiThere) wrote:

> Gee, Norm-- I've been reading your posts and I notice (except for the 
> unsupported assertion that something I used in argument was strawman) 

I got to that one just a second ago.

> you 
> haven't responded to my posts in disagreement with your position. 

This is because I am mostly in agreement with much of what you've said.

> Am I to  assume you _have_ no reasoned rebuttal? 

No.

> 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.

> Have at 'er. I've reposted them below (in case you missed them). Go for it. 
> ------------------------------
> 
> NOTE: THIS is the one where you made the unsupported assertion that I was 
> interjecting a *strawman*. Care to identify and give your reasons? 

Done and deleted.

> -----------------------------------

Ron's democracy rebuttal snipped.

I agree; as Steven Scott said: ""Four people in a lifeboat are not
entitled, as an act of democracy, to vote to eat the fifth."


> ----------------------------
> 
> 
> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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. 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. 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?

> 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.

> 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.

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

> 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.

-------------------------

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. 

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).

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.

Norm Gall

-- 
Windows 95 (win-DOH-z), n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical
shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally
coded for a 4 bit microprocessor which was written by a 2 bit company
that can't stand 1 bit of competition.