From: doug@OpenMind.com (Doug Cutrell)
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 94 10:46:42 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: AIDS testing and privacy
Message-ID: <aa94f3fb15021003da6c@[198.211.130.8]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Tim May writes on the subject of racist hiring practices:

>(It's also part of Libertarianism 101 that such a company would not
>likely do well in this day and age. Before you cite America's racist
>past, read up on who it was that enforced segregation. Hint: not the
>corporations. Ditto for South Africa (the "other" RSA), where the
>Apartheid Laws came into being because companies were looking to hire
>blacks and coloreds to fill job position, and the whites didn't like
>that much.)

I'm not sure I buy this argument... who is it that "enforces"
discrimination based on sexual orientation, today?  If sexual orientation
is a matter of status, rather than choice, then this form of discrimination
is analogous to racism.  Would you suggest that employers that refuse to
hire homosexuals are simply bowing to the pressures of society at large?
Unlike Apartheid, there are no laws that *enforce* discrimination based on
sexual orientation (at least in the USA).

In a fundamental situation of conflict between two entities, I agree that
"anything goes", in the spirit of voluntary interactions between two
entities.  In the case of a conflict between a small number of large,
powerful entities (corporate employers) and a vast number of small,
powerless entities (the employment pool), I don't see how you can argue
that this vast horde should not team up and utilize whatever means to
achieve an advantage over the few in power.

Today and in the future, "power" may reside increasingly in economic
positioning.  Thus, the power of the many individuals vs. the power of the
few corporate entities may derive largely from their collective voice in
the social conventions of society at large, which ultimately derives power
from the tax base of the society at large.  As long as these social
conventions (and the tax base that empowers them) is in place, I see
nothing wrong with the "voluntary interaction between individuals" which
consists of banding together to pass, and enforce, laws in favor of the
goals of these individuals.  This is the basis of democracy.

Along a similar vein, Blanc Weber writes:

>... just remember in the real world no one is required
>to be kind.  If some hospital or company makes a decision to
>deny service for whatever reason they justify to themselves,
>it's their call as long as they are not owned by the State.

In the real world, the voting public is not required to be kind to the
hospital or the company, either.  If a large political block can put into
place structures (laws and enforcement) which effectively provide coercion
against such denials of service, this is fair play as well.

Doug

___________________________________________________________________
Doug Cutrell                    General Partner
doug@OpenMind.com               Open Mind, Santa Cruz
===================================================================