From: Dave Sill (extropians@dave.sill.org)
Date: Wed Mar 20 2002 - 13:51:08 MST
Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
>
> I, and many others here, are generally opposed to the idea that freedom
> means that a strict moralist should be free to impose their morals on
> others.
In other words, you think people should be forced to do business with
people whose morals they disagree with? A black gun store owner should
be forced to sell to white supremacists?
> A landlord who engages publicly in commerce shouldn't be able to
> grant or deny housing to those who engage in activities they disagree
> with (though whether such activities are legal is another point
> entirely), any more than you should be able to refuse service to someone
> who is black, or female, or foreign, etc. if you engage in public
> commerce. Private commerce is something else entirely, and generally,
> obviously, it can at times be difficult to delineate between the two.
I don't understand the distinction between public and private
commerce. Could you elaborate?
> You may be free to deny service to others, but if so, then those others
> are free to tell the world about it, and if the rest of the world denies
> service to you as a result, well, then, that is your problem, isn't it?
Exactly. So why the public/private distinction?
-Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:03 MST