From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Wed Mar 20 2002 - 15:13:24 MST
> (Dave Sill <extropians@dave.sill.org>):
> 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?
Private discrimination is one of the contentious issues of
libertarian thought, along with others such as capital punishment,
intellectual property, "acceptable" risk to others, emergency
use of coercion, etc.
Mike's position is not typical, but is not uncommon: Most libertarians
fully support the right of private individuals to discriminate,
including in their "public" affairs and business, such as choosing
who they will sell to or rent to. Bigots have the same property rights
as more sensible folk, and their irrational practices should be punished
in the free market, not the courts. They acknowledge, though, that the
government, and monopolies supported by the government, do not have
that right, and such monopolies must treat all persons equally. The
government and government-supported monopolies by definition cannot be
pubished by the marketplace.
Current U.S. law is a confusing hybrid of the two positions. There
are specific sets of actions and specific types of discrimination that
are prohibited even by private individuals and businesses, but other-
wise individuals are free to discriminate. Likewise, the government is
prohibited from discriminating for a specific set of reasons, but it
too is allowed to discriminate for others.
I think the Extropian priciples recognize that such behavior is
irrational, and that it should therefore be disapproved of; but
that it is not in itself sufficient justification for using force
to override individual choice. I would classify discrimination as
a sin along the lines of using astrology: you should know better,
but I'm not going to stop you.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:03 MST