From: The Sheriff <sheriff@speakeasy.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 05:59:07 +0800
To: Colin Rafferty <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
In-Reply-To: <David Honig's message of "Tue, 23 Dec 1997 11:10:38 -0800">
Message-ID: <l03020905b0c71912dc2f@[209.130.131.207]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>> Where do you get the right to tell others how they can make a living?
>
>I don't have that right.  However, the Supreme Court has said that the
>Congress has that right.

If you would be so kind as to a) specify that supreme court ruling,
and b) identify an online resource where I can obtain the text of
that decision, so that I can 1) confirm or deny your allegation, and
2) debate your position intelligently, I would greatly appreciate it.

>> I am not allowed to place toxic waste, or noise, where it can affect
>> others; I can ingest toxins privately and listen to whatever music I
>> like so long as you don't detect it in your backyard.
>
>Well, racism is hiring decisions is something that is detected in other
>people's backyards.  That's why its illegal.

What if I run a business out of my house?  What if I don't need
employees (such that I could affort to hire a couple of people,
or nobody at all)?  If I hire someone who is white because I don't
want to hire someone is black, then it is not a loss that is felt
within the black community, since I don't *need* to hire anybody
in the first place.

>>> In a fantasy world, it is mutually consensual.  It the real world, it is
>>> seldom mutual.
>
>> You prefer a shotgun or otherwise arranged marriage?
>
>I prefer a level playing field.

The above phrase is something that I hear a lot, and it deeply
disturbs me.  Regulation is allways seen as the arm of fairness,
when the above phrase is mentioned.

I am not allowed to choose to hire someone based on skin color,
and yet the country is riddled by "affirmative" action programs --
which, in the short and brutal version of the description of "AA"
is just a system of RACE-BASED PREFRENCES.

I find it very interesting that liberal activists in California,
who rabidly insist that racism is wrong, that we must have racial
dialogues, that we should all "just get allong," used the court
system to fight Proposition 209, which ends affirmative action in
that state.  The people voted their will, and the activists took
to the courts to override the people's will -- in effect, saying
that the California voting public is just a bunch of idiots.

I don't like someone telling me that I don't know better.  When
I like is as little government influence in my life as humanly
possible, be it in my choice of breakfast cereal, or employees.

>> Private behavior is private behavior, and trade is a private behavior.
>
>Not in this country.  If you don't believe me, check out Article I,
>Section 8 for one explicit example.

I read Article I, Section 8.  I shall quote the relevent portion that
relate to this discussion:

   "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
   states, and with the Indian tribes; ... "

Now, then.  Notice the eighth word -- "amung."  As I understand
it, this means that the Fed can regulate INTERstate commerce, not
INTRAstate commerce.  This is why (again, as I understand it) the
Fed will inspect meat crossing state lines, but not meat that is
moved around within a state.  It is for this reason that not all
meat is inspected by the Fed.  If anybody has refrences to texts
that prove me wrong, bring them forward so that I can refine my
argument. :)

So, back to my home business.  Let's say I build computers and sell
them around the state.  Since I'm not transporting my product from
one state to another, the Fed can't constitutionally regulate how
I do business.

>>> With freedom comes responsibility.  Decency is one of them.

This is ALLWAYS the case.  You earn freedom through being a
responsible adult.  When you don't infringe on the rights of
others, the government has no grounds under which to infringe
on yours (through punishment or direct order).

>> But obligate decency at gunpoint is not worth it.
>
>It's called civilization.  You should try it some time.

No, no, no.  To obligate "decency" at gunpoint is definitely
NOT anything but facicism (sp?).  I remember a time when people
were obligated to do the "decent" thing and worship God and
Jesus Christ -- and, as the bumper sticker says, "The last time
religion and politics were mixed, someone got burned."

Decency is a very fuzzy word.  After all, the KKK says that
white people are the only decent people.  The KKK is in the
minority.  To use your own words:

"No majority group has a right to discriminate against a minority."

By your own words, the KKK should be allowed to discriminate
against blacks when they hire if they want to, since they are
in the minority when compared (by numbers) to all of the groups
they think are lesser than those of white skin.

After all -- does skin color constitute the only minority?  Not
according to the definition of the word.

Best wishes and fresh-roasted peanut taste,
The Sheriff. -- ***<REPLY TO: sheriff@speakeasy.org>***
---
As kinky as it sounds, finger me to see my PGP key and
confirm the signature attached to this message.
---
Any and all SPAM will be met with immediate prosecutory
efforts.  Solicitations are NOT welcome here!
---
        ----BEGIN INFLAMATORY BLOCK----
Version: 160 (IQ)
Comments: Definitely one of their greatest misses.

Reporter: "Do you know what Public Enemy is?"
---
Citizen: "Public enemy?"
          [long pause]
         "Probably somebody in office."
        -----END INFLAMATORY BLOCK-----