Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:50:01 -0500 (CDT)
> From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
> Subject: Re: A Libertine Question
> 
>      As long as you are enforcing it on everyone, I don't think you'd have a 
> problem, but to force some one from cooking food for homeless people, and 
> allow a family barbeque, is IMO wrong.

Not at all. Businesses have no rights, individuals do. Businesses have a
responsibility to protect their patrons (if you don't think so ask all the
folks in Japan or the people here in Austin sick from Strawberries and
Blueberries they bought at the local HEB). Individuals have a right to
privacy, that includes cooking themselves food without harrassment. Business
on the other hand are selling products of potentialy questionable quality. A
reasonable person recognizes that such a business has two ways of fulfilling
its responsiblities. They can either submit to regulation and quality control
from the local municipality or else they can hang signs about their place of
business declaring "Caveat Emptor: Our food may be tainted, eat at your own
risk". Which do you think is the more reasonable?

> If it is unsafe/unsanitary to cook 
> food in a certain way, it is unsafe/unsanitary. Selective enforcement is 
> wrong. 

Not at all. I have a right to kill myself with bad cooking if I choose. I do
not have the right to kill another, especialy a stranger, without their
prior consent. I guess it would be ok if a food vendor were to ask you if
you minded being killed by their product, but I doubt many of them would be
in business next week, let alone sell many hot dogs.

People and businesses are not the same.


                                                        Jim Choate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Jim Choate asked:

> A reasonable person recognizes that such a business has two ways
> of fulfilling its responsiblities. They can either submit to
> regulation and quality control from the local municipality or
> else they can hang signs about their place of business declaring
> "Caveat Emptor: Our food may be tainted, eat at your own risk".
> Which do you think is the more reasonable?

It would be nice if businesses were offered that choice.  I would
choose the second, myself.  Only my sign would say, "Our food is
guaranteed not tainted by the Acme insurance company, not some
corrupt government."  The problem is, governments do not allow 
businesses nor consumers to make that sort of choice.  With them 
it's, "my way or the highway" (or harassment and jail actually).

> People and businesses are not the same.

Until Jim shows me a business that isn't owned and operated by
people, I'll have to respectfully disagree.  Businesses are just
people acting alone or in concert.  Actions are what count, not
whether the action is of a pecuniary nature or not.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~