Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment

On Tuesday I stopped by the Freedom Forum's conference, where they released
a report on the state of the First Amendment. It's worth checking out:

  http://www.freedomforum.org/newsstand/reports/sofa/intro.asp

	Each day of this nation's life, in meetings of school boards,
	library boards, city councils, state legislatures, and Congress
	itself, figures of respect and renown rise on behalf of a
	supportive public and proclaim, "I believe in the First
	Amendment, but—" Each such announcement precedes a proposal
	to regulate our speech in order to elevate our lives.

	And so we have one of the more equisite ironies of a
	freedom-loving society: Americans truly believe they believe in
	free speech. Still, there is always that "but," that
	qualification of their commitment to the rights and values
	embedded in those 45 words of the First Amendment. In survey
	after survey, Americans stand steadfast in support of the general
	notion of free speech. In the particulars, however, we waver.
	When asked to countenance the very speech the First Amendment was
	drawn to protect—the speech of the radical, the rascal, even
	the revolting—we become unsure. We do believe in free speech
	for ourselves, but for the most part we are not so sure about
	others, especially those whose words offend our taste, threaten
	our children, or challenge our convictions.

Also at the conference:

   http://www.freedomforum.org/first/1997/12/16sofa.asp

   Keynote speaker Keen Umbehr told the audience that he lost his job,
   his community and even family and friends during his First Amendment
   battle with the county commission in Wabaunsee County, Kansas.

   Umbehr, who had a contract to haul the county's trash, also wrote
   editorials for the local newspaper, often alleging violations of law
   and other misconduct by the county commission. "What I wrote was true,
   and I could back it up," Umbehr said. "I believed that my
   constitutional rights were live and real, waiting to be activated. I
   felt that writing articles and speaking out about the government not
   only was my right, it was my duty to speak the truth, regardless of
   the fact that my whole livelihood was based on that county contract."

   The county terminated his contract in retaliation for his articles.
   Umbehr sued, and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
   In June 1996 the court upheld Umbehr's free-speech rights.

   "The troops on the front lines of the First Amendment fight
   desperately need some help," Umbehr told the audience of attorneys,
   scholars and experts. "You have the knowledge in here, and they need
   it out there."

-Declan

At 4:46 PM -0700 12/18/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:

>   Keynote speaker Keen Umbehr told the audience that he lost his job,
>   his community and even family and friends during his First Amendment
>   battle with the county commission in Wabaunsee County, Kansas.
>
>   Umbehr, who had a contract to haul the county's trash, also wrote
>   editorials for the local newspaper, often alleging violations of law
>   and other misconduct by the county commission. "What I wrote was true,
>   and I could back it up," Umbehr said. "I believed that my
>   constitutional rights were live and real, waiting to be activated. I
>   felt that writing articles and speaking out about the government not
>   only was my right, it was my duty to speak the truth, regardless of
>   the fact that my whole livelihood was based on that county contract."
>
>   The county terminated his contract in retaliation for his articles.
>   Umbehr sued, and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
>   In June 1996 the court upheld Umbehr's free-speech rights.

This is part of why the First Amendment is being eroded constantly. It is
seen as a _political_ issue.

The role of the _county_ in hiring or not hiring Keen Umbehr is
problematic, but not because of prior restraint issues.

Were far, far, far fewer persons hired by the government, the issue would
be much simpler.

Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First
Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig is
free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos,
perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the
managers at RealBig disliked.

Mr. Umbehr may have had a cause of action based on his employment contract,
and the various rules which govern government employees, but it was hardly
a First Amendment case.

Except in the "liberal" sense, which is exactly why the First is being eroded.

--Tim May


--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:

> At 4:46 PM -0700 12/18/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> >   Keynote speaker Keen Umbehr told the audience that he lost his job,
> >   his community and even family and friends during his First Amendment
> >   battle with the county commission in Wabaunsee County, Kansas.
> >
> >   Umbehr, who had a contract to haul the county's trash, also wrote
> >   editorials for the local newspaper, often alleging violations of law
> >   and other misconduct by the county commission. "What I wrote was true,
> >   and I could back it up," Umbehr said. "I believed that my
> >   constitutional rights were live and real, waiting to be activated. I
> >   felt that writing articles and speaking out about the government not
> >   only was my right, it was my duty to speak the truth, regardless of
> >   the fact that my whole livelihood was based on that county contract."
> >
> >   The county terminated his contract in retaliation for his articles.
> >   Umbehr sued, and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
> >   In June 1996 the court upheld Umbehr's free-speech rights.
>
> This is part of why the First Amendment is being eroded constantly. It is
> seen as a _political_ issue.
>
> The role of the _county_ in hiring or not hiring Keen Umbehr is
> problematic, but not because of prior restraint issues.
>
> Were far, far, far fewer persons hired by the government, the issue would
> be much simpler.
>
> Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First
> Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig is
> free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos,
> perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the
> managers at RealBig disliked.
>
> Mr. Umbehr may have had a cause of action based on his employment contract,
> and the various rules which govern government employees, but it was hardly
> a First Amendment case.
>
> Except in the "liberal" sense, which is exactly why the First is being eroded

This has no crypto relevance (not surprising, coming from Timmy)

1st Amendment says, "the congress shall pass no law".  It says nothing about
some redneck county not being allowed to curtail free speech.  if you don't
like it, move to another county.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

At 10:40 PM 12/18/97 -0500, Marc Rotenberg wrote:

>
>Tim's analysis is nonsensical.
>
>A government employee loses his job because of his political
>views. He brings a lawsuit, alleging a violation of the First
>Amendment, and eventually prevails in the Supreme Court.
>
>A non-government employee who loses his job because of his
>political views would have no cause of action because the
>private employer is not bound by the First Amendment.
>
>Therefore there should be far fewer government employees
>to prevent further erosion of the First Amendment.

I.e., people not working for the government have no first-amendment claims
agains their employer since the *first amendment constrains only government*.


>>Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First
>>Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig is
>>free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos,
>>perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the
>>managers at RealBig disliked.
>
>Substitute "fascist society" for "free society" in the paragraph
>above and the discussion begins to make some sense. Hell, it's even
>historically accurate.

Marc, you have declared how far you take freedom: you apparently
believe it is proper for the government to intervene in private hiring
decisions.  Unfortunately many americans believe this intrusion is justified.

A less statist viewpoint holds that government should not be used to control
employment  since both parties consent voluntarily -and therefore,
an employer has the right to hire and fire at will -including for
'distasteful' reasons.

The issue is confounded in the anecdote because the employer is government
in this case, 
and we might expect government to be obligated to hire and fire only on the
basis of merit.  In a *free* world *employers* can fire for speech;
government can't
interfere in speech.  

In the US today, employers do not have that freedom.  Government outlaws
employers freedom to hire and fire ---except against recreational
pharmaceutical consumers--- and the populace considers this permissible in
the name of harmony.  

If one ever questions this in public, as Tim did, the liberal response is
to show that
unPC 'discrimination' is possible if humans are free, and then the dutiful
citizen gladly sacrifices employers' liberty for their warm and fuzzy
feelings.

The first amendment is about what government can't do to you, not what your
neighbor can or can't do.









------------------------------------------------------------
      David Honig                   Orbit Technology
     honig@otc.net                  Intaanetto Jigyoubu

	M-16 : Don Quixote :: PGP : Louis Freeh
         Let freedom ring (or screech at 28.8)

On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, David Honig wrote:  ...

> If one ever questions this in public, as Tim did, the liberal response
> is to show that unPC 'discrimination' is possible if humans are free,
> and then the dutiful citizen gladly sacrifices employers' liberty for
> their warm and fuzzy feelings.  The first amendment is about what
> government can't do to you, not what your  neighbor can or can't do. 

Yeah.  The real question is what humans are free to do.  The freedom
to do something is also the freedom *not* to do something.  The freedom
to conduct a transaction (employing someone) must also be the freedom
not to conduct that transaction because the transaction is voluntary.

Making laws against people's decision making ability (i don't want to
associate with you because of "xyz") is making laws against people's
thought processes -- essentially mindcrime.  If you're doing something
to someone against their will it doesn't matter how you came to
that decision.  Its force.  Employment descrimination is not force,
it's abcense of force.

No force, no fraud, no crime.

Freedom of association cannot exist without the freedom to not associate.

I make no assumptions about some peoples strange reasons not to 
associate.  I advocate water sharing for everyone.  Hail Eris!

(btw: government cannot descriminate on the basis of sex, race,
religion etc because they have already used force to relieve
citizen units of their hard earned cashed regardless.  but making
moral decisions about what to do after force has been committed
is more about making amends than justice)

jim

At 11:58 AM -0700 12/19/97, Jim Burnes wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, David Honig wrote:  ...
>
>> If one ever questions this in public, as Tim did, the liberal response
>> is to show that unPC 'discrimination' is possible if humans are free,
>> and then the dutiful citizen gladly sacrifices employers' liberty for
>> their warm and fuzzy feelings.  The first amendment is about what
>> government can't do to you, not what your  neighbor can or can't do.
>
>Yeah.  The real question is what humans are free to do.  The freedom
>to do something is also the freedom *not* to do something.  The freedom
>to conduct a transaction (employing someone) must also be the freedom
>not to conduct that transaction because the transaction is voluntary.

Indeed, this is why I was very careful to include the magic phrase, "in a
free society." I rarely try to explain what's legal in the United States
today, as the U.S. has not been a free society in a long, long time.
(Arguably never, but I'm not quibbling about pure liberty, I mean that the
changes in the past 30-60 years have moved the U.S. very far from being a
free society.)

>Freedom of association cannot exist without the freedom to not associate.
>

Exactly. The confusing web of laws governing whom one can hire, whom one
_must_  hire, whom one may not fire without facing a civil lawsuit, etc.,
shows that freedom of association is dead in America. When a Christian
church is told that not hiring a Satanist will be a violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act, we know we've plunged through the looking glass.

When a health food store faces a crippling lawsuit under Title VII because
it denied a job to a "person of poundage," the Mad Hatter is running the
show.

Megadittos for rules requiring access to cripples (*), rules requiring
non-smoking areas, rules requiring ethnic diversity in the workplace, and
on and on.

(* The cripples example is amusing, and sickening. A strip joint in LA,
which the City Fathers didn't want sullying their urban paradise, was
inspected for compliance with all of the thousands of laws. The inspectors
discovered that the "shower stage" in the center of the main room lacked
"wheelchair access." Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the club
had to close until an evevator or ramp could be installed (presumably so
sickos could watch paraplegic strippers or flipper babes disrobing? Gimme a
break.).)

California is starting to unwind some of these unconstitutional (in the
"original" sense) rules. Quotas have ended, welfare is ending, etc. Maybe
some day we'll see freedom of association returned.

--Tim May



The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May writes:

> California is starting to unwind some of these unconstitutional (in the
> "original" sense) rules. Quotas have ended, welfare is ending, etc. Maybe
> some day we'll see freedom of association returned.

That will be great, because then I won't have to share a lunch counter
with those Niggers anymore.

-- 
Colin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <ocriusl15ub.fsf@ml.com>, on 12/19/97 
   at 02:38 PM, Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com> said:


>Tim May writes:

>> California is starting to unwind some of these unconstitutional (in the
>> "original" sense) rules. Quotas have ended, welfare is ending, etc. Maybe
>> some day we'll see freedom of association returned.

>That will be great, because then I won't have to share a lunch counter
>with those Niggers anymore.

Yep and they woun't have to share it with you either. It's all part of
what living in a *free* society is all about.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a-sha1
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNJsUtY9Co1n+aLhhAQJGKAP8CCJgeDX7uiGDS/GurHVm3GXw6orVnrLe
uf2VStIHWeMRMFuZtgQr//PH8rhvsOb2hGp5jjxNtDYkv7wobOh/uiKDBGeH/eAY
MyKoBhM7zSqoAmG8GAHVsRqrsAVqAmO9YANbC2XmoAO7+LkoXsnzgDz8CvR07Sg2
+EpsvsDlLAg=
=NS+d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 12:38 PM -0700 12/19/97, Colin Rafferty wrote:
>Tim May writes:
>
>> California is starting to unwind some of these unconstitutional (in the
>> "original" sense) rules. Quotas have ended, welfare is ending, etc. Maybe
>> some day we'll see freedom of association returned.
>
>That will be great, because then I won't have to share a lunch counter
>with those Niggers anymore.

Regardless of what thinks about that sentiment, that is indeed a
consequence of freedom in general and freedom of assocation in particular.


--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

At 2:08 AM -0000 12/19/97, Tim May wrote:
>At 4:46 PM -0700 12/18/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>>   Keynote speaker Keen Umbehr told the audience that he lost his job,
>>   his community and even family and friends during his First Amendment
>>   battle with the county commission in Wabaunsee County, Kansas.
>>
>>   Umbehr, who had a contract to haul the county's trash, also wrote
>>   editorials for the local newspaper, often alleging violations of law
>>   and other misconduct by the county commission. "What I wrote was true,
>>   and I could back it up," Umbehr said. "I believed that my
>>   constitutional rights were live and real, waiting to be activated. I
>>   felt that writing articles and speaking out about the government not
>>   only was my right, it was my duty to speak the truth, regardless of
>>   the fact that my whole livelihood was based on that county contract."
>>
>>   The county terminated his contract in retaliation for his articles.
>>   Umbehr sued, and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
>>   In June 1996 the court upheld Umbehr's free-speech rights.
>
>This is part of why the First Amendment is being eroded constantly. It is
>seen as a _political_ issue.
>
>The role of the _county_ in hiring or not hiring Keen Umbehr is
>problematic, but not because of prior restraint issues.
>
>Were far, far, far fewer persons hired by the government, the issue would
>be much simpler.
>

Tim's analysis is nonsensical.

A government employee loses his job because of his political
views. He brings a lawsuit, alleging a violation of the First
Amendment, and eventually prevails in the Supreme Court.

A non-government employee who loses his job because of his
political views would have no cause of action because the
private employer is not bound by the First Amendment.

Therefore there should be far fewer government employees
to prevent further erosion of the First Amendment.

>Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First
>Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig is
>free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos,
>perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the
>managers at RealBig disliked.

Substitute "fascist society" for "free society" in the paragraph
above and the discussion begins to make some sense. Hell, it's even
historically accurate.

[This is probably the point at which we get those posts about
how there is more freedom in Singapore. Unless, of course,
you chew gum on the job.]

Marc.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>Tim's analysis is nonsensical.
>>
>>A government employee loses his job because of his political
>>views. He brings a lawsuit, alleging a violation of the First
>>Amendment, and eventually prevails in the Supreme Court.
>>
>>A non-government employee who loses his job because of his
>>political views would have no cause of action because the
>>private employer is not bound by the First Amendment.
>>
>>Therefore there should be far fewer government employees
>>to prevent further erosion of the First Amendment.

I sort of like Tim's reasoning.

It's reminiscent of Frank Chordorov's remarks back during the McCarthy Era.  
"If you're worried about Communists in government jobs; get rid of the 
government jobs."

DCF


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNJ3qVoVO4r4sgSPhAQHO4wP9GuK8rdqlqPMCjqzgLoNZ1LtorM2ExMMq
f2ARLGE0c/M/TV4t+N6xF+wUd3rnmbU05UhRNKFWzCkK0hgUFc8pUCUN+I4UNBKt
aCLGwaJEi2d1PydLliz4i1qIJCM7BQEGqyg6prX3Xk1UFFrC5/kkZIwYGpiziF4Q
ANEh+wC3iVg=
=cS/O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 10:45 AM -0700 12/19/97, David Honig wrote:

>The issue is confounded in the anecdote because the employer is government
>in this case,
>and we might expect government to be obligated to hire and fire only on the
>basis of merit.  In a *free* world *employers* can fire for speech;
>government can't
>interfere in speech.

Yes, this was my main point, that when viewing government AS AN EMPLOYER
there are things that government employer can do which would not be
permissable, constitutionally, for the government to do to ordinary
citizens. It can tell employees what clothing to wear (uniforms, dress
codes), it can tell employees where they must be at what times, and it can
even tell classes of employees what they may say even when not "on the job."

(Without getting into nitpicking, there are rules restricting what
employees of the military, for example, may say about political candidates.
Does this restrict their First Amendment rights? Not if they agreed to
these restrictions, as they did when they joined the military.)

And the government as an employer has all sorts of abilities to fire
employees who speak out of line. If the Secretary of State announces she is
now supporting a Republican candidate for President, does not President
Clinton have every right to can her? Or if the Director of the FBI
announces he has proof that Martians are beaming signals into his
fillings....

And employees of the NSA may be fired if they divulge information.

Or imagine a senior White House official announcing that Christianity is
sinful...are his religious freedoms being infringed upon if the President
fires him? How about if he was making his comments "after hours"? It makes
no difference.

And so on, for many such examples. None of these actions, in my view (and
apparently in the view of the courts, which have not thrown out such
government-as-employer rules), are violations of the First Amendment, or
any other amendments.

Some employees of the government may have employment contracts or union
contracts, and these may define the circumstances under which employees may
be fired, or disciplined, or told what they can say.

Now it may not be _smart_ of some government agency to try to restrict the
off-the-job speech of military personnel, NSA employees, or Department of
the Interior forest rangers, but the issues are not compelling First
Amendment issues.

The government AS EMPLOYER has the ability to impose restrictions on
employees, as all employers do, that are fundamentally different from the
restrictions government can impose on free citizens.

>In the US today, employers do not have that freedom.  Government outlaws
>employers freedom to hire and fire ---except against recreational
>pharmaceutical consumers--- and the populace considers this permissible in
>the name of harmony.

Indeed, we are moving away from "liberty" toward "fraternity" as the
cornerstone of our society.

>If one ever questions this in public, as Tim did, the liberal response is
>to show that
>unPC 'discrimination' is possible if humans are free, and then the dutiful
>citizen gladly sacrifices employers' liberty for their warm and fuzzy
>feelings.
>
>The first amendment is about what government can't do to you, not what your
>neighbor can or can't do.

Agreed, except that I would add that the Constitution doesn't preclude the
government, as an employer, from setting rules for its employees.

Even in George Washington's day, I'm sure if one of the White House's
servants announced that it was his constitutional right to say whatever he
pleased and to wear whatever he pleased and to pray to Baal 10 times a day,
that no one would take him seriously.

(Perhaps a Supreme Court clerk can begin speaking only in Urdu, and then
when he is fired he can file a lawsuit claiming his First Amendment rights
were violated?)

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> Tim's analysis is nonsensical.
> 
> A government employee loses his job because of his political
> views. He brings a lawsuit, alleging a violation of the First
> Amendment, and eventually prevails in the Supreme Court.
> 
> A non-government employee who loses his job because of his
> political views would have no cause of action because the
> private employer is not bound by the First Amendment.
> 
> Therefore there should be far fewer government employees
> to prevent further erosion of the First Amendment.

This makes sense, do you not see the logic?

> >Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First
> >Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig is
> >free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos,
> >perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the
> >managers at RealBig disliked.
> 
> Substitute "fascist society" for "free society" in the paragraph
> above and the discussion begins to make some sense. Hell, it's even
> historically accurate.

Wrong, do you dispute the fact that RealBig corp. is free to refuse to 
hire people for any reason whatsoever? Do you think I should not be 
allowed to refuse to hire people because of their race or sexual orientation?

Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire 
someone for being jewish/black/homosexual???


        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes:

> > Tim's analysis is nonsensical.
> >
> > A government employee loses his job because of his political
> > views. He brings a lawsuit, alleging a violation of the First
> > Amendment, and eventually prevails in the Supreme Court.
> >
> > A non-government employee who loses his job because of his
> > political views would have no cause of action because the
> > private employer is not bound by the First Amendment.
> >
> > Therefore there should be far fewer government employees
> > to prevent further erosion of the First Amendment.
>
> This makes sense, do you not see the logic?

paul, it only makes sense according to my logic or your logic.
According to mark's logic (totally different) everyone should be
a government employee.

> > >Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First
> > >Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig is
> > >free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos,
> > >perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the
> > >managers at RealBig disliked.
> >
> > Substitute "fascist society" for "free society" in the paragraph
> > above and the discussion begins to make some sense. Hell, it's even
> > historically accurate.
>
> Wrong, do you dispute the fact that RealBig corp. is free to refuse to
> hire people for any reason whatsoever? Do you think I should not be
> allowed to refuse to hire people because of their race or sexual orientation?
>
> Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire
> someone for being jewish/black/homosexual???

In Mark's world, that's the next best thing to not letting RealBig Corp
hire anyone at all, so it cannot "discriminate".  let the gubmint do all
the hiring.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Paul Bradley writes:

>> >Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First
>> >Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig is
>> >free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos,
>> >perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the
>> >managers at RealBig disliked.
>> 
>> Substitute "fascist society" for "free society" in the paragraph
>> above and the discussion begins to make some sense. Hell, it's even
>> historically accurate.

> Wrong, do you dispute the fact that RealBig corp. is free to refuse to 
> hire people for any reason whatsoever? Do you think I should not be 
> allowed to refuse to hire people because of their race or sexual orientation?

> Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire 
> someone for being jewish/black/homosexual???

Welcome to the 20th Century, moron.

-- 
Colin

> > Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire 
> > someone for being jewish/black/homosexual???
> 
> Welcome to the 20th Century, moron.

You clearly have no comprehension of the principles of the free market 
and the rights of businesses and individual to hire and fire whoever the 
fuck they like for any reason whatsoever. I am no racist, but I defend 
your right to be as racist as you see fit.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Paul Bradley wrote:

[...]

> > Welcome to the 20th Century, moron.
> 
> You clearly have no comprehension of the principles of the free market 
> and the rights of businesses and individual to hire and fire whoever the 
> fuck they like for any reason whatsoever.

My rights to swing my fists end at your noise.  When ever you interact
with other peaple your rights are tempered by there rights.  Even Adam
Smith recognised that its was gorverments dutie to redress the failing of
the market.

Also recall the free market model assumes that the word is full of totaly
rational pepeale who have full knowige of the market.  Any one who has
been on this list knows that these peaple are somewhat uncommen.

- -- 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNK4GM6QK0ynCmdStAQFE7AP/Xgnf8xsGsovspmlzG8xRLCBPKAcAco1d
hwUg752OPyjDksq6ZlM4eQNckRAwXWtEVethqJFXk/Wgyl0//f9L5zjSv/f1siAg
uYUpElxwajL23W6AZjMVqhBqIn1daeI7PIlJy1iBfE2151fPuPQ8Ox6XHVbDjqZC
KR/CjYA0uCY=
=3e/G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> > You clearly have no comprehension of the principles of the free market 
> > and the rights of businesses and individual to hire and fire whoever the 
> > fuck they like for any reason whatsoever.
> 
> My rights to swing my fists end at your noise.  When ever you interact
> with other peaple your rights are tempered by there rights.  Even Adam
> Smith recognised that its was gorverments dutie to redress the failing of
> the market.

Why there is even discussion on this point on a list whose membership is 
composed mainly of market anarchists is beyond me, the NAP and rights of 
association should clearly define the answer to this question, no 
agression is involved in the act of firing or declining to hire people 
based on their colour/nationality or any other factor whatsoever. 

> Also recall the free market model assumes that the word is full of totaly
> rational pepeale who have full knowige of the market.  Any one who has
> been on this list knows that these peaple are somewhat uncommen.

I don`t see the model that way at all, I don`t claim that my idea of a 
free market works well in practice, I believe it would but I have no 
proof, however, the model is ethically right in that it allows businesses 
and individuals to behave as they please as long as it harms no other 
person, sure, firing you may harm you by decreasing your income but this 
is not an agressive act, it is a passive one: I have declined to offer 
you, or keep you, in employment.


        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Paul Bradley wrote:

[...]

> > My rights to swing my fists end at your noise.  When ever you interact
> > with other peaple your rights are tempered by there rights.  Even Adam
> > Smith recognised that its was gorverments dutie to redress the failing of
> > the market.
> 
> Why there is even discussion on this point on a list whose membership is 
> composed mainly of market anarchists is beyond me,

Since when has a crypto anarchist been a market anarchist?  

> the NAP and rights of 
> association should clearly define the answer to this question, no 
> agression is involved in the act of firing or declining to hire people 
> based on their colour/nationality or any other factor whatsoever. 

Ok a for instence,  if I was your boss and I sated that I would fire you
unless you would go *u-hum* cave exploring with me[1].  Such situations
have occured in the past, would you support them.

To me a person with that amount of power is uneceptable.

> > Also recall the free market model assumes that the word is full of totaly
> > rational pepeale who have full knowige of the market.  Any one who has
> > been on this list knows that these peaple are somewhat uncommen.
> 
> I don`t see the model that way at all,

I'm sorry but it is one of the fundermenalts of economic thory.

[...]

> the model is ethically right in that it allows businesses 
> and individuals to behave as they please as long as it harms no other 
> person,

So allowing someone to stave to death because thay have the wrong collour
of skin, or unwilling to get up close and personal with the boss, is not a
form of harm.

> sure, firing you may harm you by decreasing your income but this 
> is not an agressive act, it is a passive one: I have declined to offer 
> you, or keep you, in employment.

Immagion there is a truck rolling out of conrol in your direction,
keeping silent may harm you by preventing you from jumping out of the way,
but this is not an agressive act, it is a passive one: I have declined to
warn you.

[1] Not that I am thay way enclined.

- -- 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNLeDGaQK0ynCmdStAQHzowP9HJvaXxE1/SI8uBsO2RhE03/qQL96vrLb
KV5+CblQs8qwAoy7edKtl36i/jM1U7pUdJOr81GzvHR7/0SIxuZzWOHYVkQxhW6q
jVF83U2MSToLFfRfsmwm2u+IfWZfqeqkL51L1DmdHm7CnntfviaSYssgRS0Ndaiw
b+LGW4LhWYk=
=7a6v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:
> > Why there is even discussion on this point on a list whose membership is
> > composed mainly of market anarchists is beyond me,
>
> Since when has a crypto anarchist been a market anarchist?

You can't realy be one without the other. You can't be a little bit statist.
You can't be a little bit pregnant.

> > the NAP and rights of
> > association should clearly define the answer to this question, no
> > agression is involved in the act of firing or declining to hire people
> > based on their colour/nationality or any other factor whatsoever.
>
> Ok a for instence,  if I was your boss and I sated that I would fire you
> unless you would go *u-hum* cave exploring with me[1].  Such situations
> have occured in the past, would you support them.

If the sole owner of a business has a female secretary brought into his
office, pulls down his pants, and orders her to kiss his dick; and fires her
for refusing; then he's engaging in behavior that's been viewed for centuries
as one of the occupational hazards for working women and nothing out of the
ordinary. Of course if the "sexual harasser" happens to be governor bill
clinton, then he can do no wrong; if the boss himself works for a corporation
thrn we have an agency problem: she can complain to his boss, or the board of
directors, or the shareholders, that he's harming the business by firing a
valuable employee over his own sexual problems. If the secretary sues him in
the US, she might win some money, turn most of it over to her lawyers, and
never find another job; etc. Wouldn't it be easier to say that if you don't
like your present job for any reason (including your boss making amorous
advances, or too little pay, or the color of the paint on the walls of your
office), you should look for another one?

> To me a person with that amount of power is uneceptable.

You'd rather give his power to the employee or to the state? Don't forget
that this power is balanced by the employee's right to get up and leave.

Would you have preferred the model popular in the medieval europe, where
the boss was forced to care for the worker (peasant) if he got too old/sick to
work, but the worker/peasant couldn't get up and leave just because he felt
like it?  Apparently that involved the boss's right to fuck the peasant and
his family any time he pleased (ever heard of droit de segnor?)

> > the model is ethically right in that it allows businesses
> > and individuals to behave as they please as long as it harms no other
> > person,
>
> So allowing someone to stave to death because thay have the wrong collour
> of skin, or unwilling to get up close and personal with the boss, is not a
> form of harm.

Given the choice, some people indeed would rathe starve to death than work.
However all modern societies provide some sort of marxist safety net: those
who are too sick/old to work, or can't find work, or perhaps unilling to work
are given some of the wealth taken away by the state from those who have it
(mostly from those who do work).  This redistribution of wealth is another
contraversial issue, but it has very little connection to the question of
an employer's right to discrminate on criteria other than bona fide
occpuational qualifications.

Indeed, if all the employers in the world conspired not to hire redheads,
they still wouldn't starve; they'd get welfare (dole, whatever it's called
in ozland), and the more enterprising ones would start businesses of their
own and hire their fellow redheads. As US blacks once did that and were
in much better shape than they are now.

> Immagion there is a truck rolling out of conrol in your direction,
> keeping silent may harm you by preventing you from jumping out of the way,
> but this is not an agressive act, it is a passive one: I have declined to
> warn you.

The inaction that you've described is highly unethical, but hardly illegal.
Likewise racial discrimination is very unthical, and I'd generally try not to
deal with anyone who practices it, but it shouldn't be illegal.

> [1] Not that I am thay way enclined.

We know, you prefer kangaroos.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:

> > Since when has a crypto anarchist been a market anarchist?
> 
> You can't realy be one without the other. You can't be a little bit statist.
> You can't be a little bit pregnant.

A person can be more statist then another person.  Statistness is a
real not a binarie.  

[...]

> > Ok a for instence,  if I was your boss and I sated that I would fire you
> > unless you would go *u-hum* cave exploring with me[1].  Such situations
> > have occured in the past, would you support them.
> 
> If the sole owner of a business has a female secretary brought into his
> office, pulls down his pants, and orders her to kiss his dick; and fires her
> for refusing; then he's engaging in behavior that's been viewed for centuries
> as one of the occupational hazards for working women and nothing out of the
> ordinary.

And if a mine worker suffercates to death in a poorly venterlated mine
then there engaging in behavior that's been viewed for centuries as one of
the occupation hazards for workers in poorly venterlated mines.

But of cause we have occupational health and safty laws to stop these
types of abuse.

[...]

> Wouldn't it be easier to say that if you don't
> like your present job for any reason (including your boss making amorous
> advances, or too little pay, or the color of the paint on the walls of your
> office), you should look for another one?

Which is fine when the ecomomy is strong and there is pleanty of jobs
going around but when the economy is on a downturn (like say because your
magour export markets have gone into free falls) and there are few jobs,
cound you risk it.

[...]

> > To me a person with that amount of power is uneceptable.
> 
> You'd rather give his power to the employee or to the state?

I'd rather have power spread around so no one has a signifigent amount of
it.

[...]

> Would you have preferred the model popular in the medieval europe, where
> the boss was forced to care for the worker (peasant) if he got too old/sick to
> work,

In a way we do this via our super anuation scheams.

[...]

> Apparently that involved the boss's right to fuck the peasant and
> his family any time he pleased (ever heard of droit de segnor?)

Its a type of dog isn't it?  A big hairy one. [2]

[...]

> > Immagion there is a truck rolling out of conrol in your direction,
> > keeping silent may harm you by preventing you from jumping out of the way,
> > but this is not an agressive act, it is a passive one: I have declined to
> > warn you.
> 
> The inaction that you've described is highly unethical, but hardly illegal.

Depeaning on the laws and cercomstances you may get procuted in simmler
situtaions.  Indeed the coronor is going to have allot of questions to
ask you.

[2] Lit Right of the first night.  The boss had the right to fuck your
wife on the first night of your marrige.  The only refereces we have for
this are the laws out-lawing the practice.

- -- 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNLmtaqQK0ynCmdStAQFD1QP9G3eOW5vyRVzkS9zQ1ImK92/P+aTHt1a9
MeqaNPOL/6Mt90X0bjfVWEm6PdgfGCxAvo+d79DW5l1GzHAOvwaAa7JBK2FsfTi/
1AAaEXe4O2nxYymaL5xHz+BiUO6ew5T2HetxvcacJn5EF8OZViROa3LHXbPGy6Mz
BLtpjldRWTE=
=t8GV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 6:17 AM -0800 1/10/98, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Paul Bradley wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> > My rights to swing my fists end at your noise.  When ever you interact
>> > with other peaple your rights are tempered by there rights.  Even Adam
>> > Smith recognised that its was gorverments dutie to redress the failing of
>> > the market.
>>
>> Why there is even discussion on this point on a list whose membership is
>> composed mainly of market anarchists is beyond me,
>
>Since when has a crypto anarchist been a market anarchist?

And how else could it be?


>> the NAP and rights of
>> association should clearly define the answer to this question, no
>> agression is involved in the act of firing or declining to hire people
>> based on their colour/nationality or any other factor whatsoever.
>
>Ok a for instence,  if I was your boss and I sated that I would fire you
>unless you would go *u-hum* cave exploring with me[1].  Such situations
>have occured in the past, would you support them.

Employees and employers make agreements all the time. To wear funny
uniforms, to bark when the boss says bark, to write in certain languages,
and so on.

If an employee does not wish to do what an employer instructs, he or she
may leave.

Sounds fair to me.

(And most employers will value work output--profits--over lesser
considerations. So, even though a boss has every "right" to demand that
employees where dunce caps to work, for example, few will. Those who do
will lose their employees and go out of business. Sounds fair to me.)



>So allowing someone to stave to death because thay have the wrong collour
>of skin, or unwilling to get up close and personal with the boss, is not a
>form of harm.

I "allow people to starve to death" each and every day because they are not
doing something I want. Think about it. Every time I elect not to send
money to starving Bengalis or Hutus or Ugabugus I am "allowing them to
starve," quite literally.

So?

If an employer chooses not to hire certain types of persons this is really
no different from my choosing not to marry certain types of persons (and I
can imagine I could save a woman from "starving" by simply flying to Bangla
Desh, finding a starving woman, marrying her, and then supporting her. So?).

These are well-covered issues in many books on libertarianism and freedom.

Freedom means freedom. That some people will not have as much food as they
would like to have in a free society is no reason to discard freedom.

More to the point, crypto anarchy means taking such decisions about whether
to discard freedom or not out of the hands of others.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:

> >> Why there is even discussion on this point on a list whose membership is
> >> composed mainly of market anarchists is beyond me,
> >
> >Since when has a crypto anarchist been a market anarchist?
>
> And how else could it be?

Evidently some folks on this list do feel that it's possible for the gubmint
to curtail our liberties in some ways and not in others.  Phooey.

> (And most employers will value work output--profits--over lesser
> considerations. So, even though a boss has every "right" to demand that
> employees where dunce caps to work, for example, few will. Those who do
> will lose their employees and go out of business. Sounds fair to me.)

Likewise an employer that discriminates, e.g., redheads of lefties will
lose to its competitors who will hire the valuable employees that this
moron rejected.

> >So allowing someone to stave to death because thay have the wrong collour
> >of skin, or unwilling to get up close and personal with the boss, is not a
> >form of harm.
>
> I "allow people to starve to death" each and every day because they are not
> doing something I want. Think about it. Every time I elect not to send
> money to starving Bengalis or Hutus or Ugabugus I am "allowing them to
> starve," quite literally.
>
> So?

So the United Nations of some other body will take your wealth and
redistribute it to the starving Bengalis whose religion tells them
to have 19 children.

> If an employer chooses not to hire certain types of persons this is really
> no different from my choosing not to marry certain types of persons (and I
> can imagine I could save a woman from "starving" by simply flying to Bangla
> Desh, finding a starving woman, marrying her, and then supporting her. So?).

Should women be allowed to allow men to go horny by refusing to have sex
with certain classes of people?  Can a white woman be sued for consistently
refusing to sleep with black men?

> Freedom means freedom. That some people will not have as much food as they
> would like to have in a free society is no reason to discard freedom.
>
> More to the point, crypto anarchy means taking such decisions about whether
> to discard freedom or not out of the hands of others.

On the internet nobody knows that you're a protected minority.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com> writes:
>
> > Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire
> > someone for being jewish/black/homosexual???
>
> Welcome to the 20th Century, moron.

Such rudeness on a public mailing list reflects very badly on your
employer, ml.com.  I invite everyone to join me in complaing to ml.com
about Colin Rafferty's abuse of ML's Internet services.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <ocryb1c2i2u.fsf@ml.com>, on 12/23/97 
   at 10:30 AM, Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com> said:

>Paul Bradley writes:

>>> >Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First
>>> >Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig is
>>> >free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos,
>>> >perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the
>>> >managers at RealBig disliked.
>>> 
>>> Substitute "fascist society" for "free society" in the paragraph
>>> above and the discussion begins to make some sense. Hell, it's even
>>> historically accurate.

>> Wrong, do you dispute the fact that RealBig corp. is free to refuse to 
>> hire people for any reason whatsoever? Do you think I should not be 
>> allowed to refuse to hire people because of their race or sexual orientation?

>> Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire 
>> someone for being jewish/black/homosexual???

>Welcome to the 20th Century, moron.

Really amazing how many so-called "freedom fighters" become STATIST if the
proper buttons are pushed.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a-sha1
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNJ/2IY9Co1n+aLhhAQIUdwP+MEjAEd/EXBcyB/mwOwikDV55GLOsk/cI
akKTGFQeFttzCfUM1ImuIzLrZySXxjMWelHlfqpqJkB59EvG5mxX+gNHUK92kZXK
DO+uTXqmWI3m2eOUyM3647lcaVGbiq4q9qa5BR+kWHX0ImEihaQvUcJbraIs7hTA
CYopid6sJ6Y=
=E3Yq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

William H Geiger writes:
> In <ocryb1c2i2u.fsf@ml.com>, on 12/23/97 at 10:30 AM, Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com> said:
>> Paul Bradley writes:

>>>> >Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First
>>>> >Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig
>>>> >is free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos,
>>>> >perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the
>>>> >managers at RealBig disliked.
>>>> 
>>>> Substitute "fascist society" for "free society" in the paragraph
>>>> above and the discussion begins to make some sense. Hell, it's even
>>>> historically accurate.

>>> Wrong, do you dispute the fact that RealBig corp. is free to refuse to 
>>> hire people for any reason whatsoever? Do you think I should not be 
>>> allowed to refuse to hire people because of their race or sexual
>>> orientation?

>>> Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire 
>>> someone for being jewish/black/homosexual???

>> Welcome to the 20th Century, moron.

> Really amazing how many so-called "freedom fighters" become STATIST if the
> proper buttons are pushed.

What are you talking about?

Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression.

If you want to live in a hut in Montana and shelter yourself from the
real world, feel free.  Otherwise, it may be a good idea to check out
social theories from the last hundred years.

-- 
Colin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <ocrwwgw2bd3.fsf@ml.com>, on 12/23/97 
   at 12:55 PM, Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com> said:

>William H Geiger writes:
>> In <ocryb1c2i2u.fsf@ml.com>, on 12/23/97 at 10:30 AM, Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com> said:
>>> Paul Bradley writes:

>>>>> >Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First
>>>>> >Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig
>>>>> >is free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos,
>>>>> >perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the
>>>>> >managers at RealBig disliked.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Substitute "fascist society" for "free society" in the paragraph
>>>>> above and the discussion begins to make some sense. Hell, it's even
>>>>> historically accurate.

>>>> Wrong, do you dispute the fact that RealBig corp. is free to refuse to 
>>>> hire people for any reason whatsoever? Do you think I should not be 
>>>> allowed to refuse to hire people because of their race or sexual
>>>> orientation?

>>>> Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire 
>>>> someone for being jewish/black/homosexual???

>>> Welcome to the 20th Century, moron.

>> Really amazing how many so-called "freedom fighters" become STATIST if the
>> proper buttons are pushed.

>What are you talking about?

>Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression.

>If you want to live in a hut in Montana and shelter yourself from the
>real world, feel free.  Otherwise, it may be a good idea to check out
>social theories from the last hundred years.

Please explain to me where in the Constitution the government is given the
power to determin who I *must* associate with?? If I decide that I do not
wish to do business with anyone who's last name begins with the letter "R"
what gives you the right to say that I must?!?

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a-sha1
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNKAAUI9Co1n+aLhhAQL6NwP/bI4SHiv4HX8yEFKvvG3SPZax3Q7HnbT5
EYspxRngonicaDVWyY4ANzHkPmUCDPdgTmJURCUYr14D0EJcUpwnq5rsike2XamE
3GPxIz0v57pmzx8Koy+PoosS5l89MhYk9g90GK9b2Go9pS9uGfJKDYOyhReashs/
e/LK++LX7Tw=
=YjBi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <ocrwwgw2bd3.fsf@ml.com>, on 12/23/97 
   at 12:55 PM, Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com> said:

>William H Geiger writes:
>> In <ocryb1c2i2u.fsf@ml.com>, on 12/23/97 at 10:30 AM, Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com> said:
>>> Paul Bradley writes:

>>>>> >Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First
>>>>> >Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig
>>>>> >is free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos,
>>>>> >perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the
>>>>> >managers at RealBig disliked.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Substitute "fascist society" for "free society" in the paragraph
>>>>> above and the discussion begins to make some sense. Hell, it's even
>>>>> historically accurate.

>>>> Wrong, do you dispute the fact that RealBig corp. is free to refuse to 
>>>> hire people for any reason whatsoever? Do you think I should not be 
>>>> allowed to refuse to hire people because of their race or sexual
>>>> orientation?

>>>> Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire 
>>>> someone for being jewish/black/homosexual???

>>> Welcome to the 20th Century, moron.

>> Really amazing how many so-called "freedom fighters" become STATIST if the
>> proper buttons are pushed.

>What are you talking about?

>Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression.

>If you want to live in a hut in Montana and shelter yourself from the
>real world, feel free.  Otherwise, it may be a good idea to check out
>social theories from the last hundred years.

Please explain to me where in the Constitution the government is given the
power to determin who I *must* associate with?? If I decide that I do not
wish to do business with anyone who's last name begins with the letter "R"
what gives you the right to say that I must?!?

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a-sha1
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNKAAUI9Co1n+aLhhAQL6NwP/bI4SHiv4HX8yEFKvvG3SPZax3Q7HnbT5
EYspxRngonicaDVWyY4ANzHkPmUCDPdgTmJURCUYr14D0EJcUpwnq5rsike2XamE
3GPxIz0v57pmzx8Koy+PoosS5l89MhYk9g90GK9b2Go9pS9uGfJKDYOyhReashs/
e/LK++LX7Tw=
=YjBi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

William H Geiger writes:
> In <ocrwwgw2bd3.fsf@ml.com>, on 12/23/97 at 12:55 PM, Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com> said:
>> William H Geiger writes:
>>> In <ocryb1c2i2u.fsf@ml.com>, on 12/23/97 at 10:30 AM, Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com> said:
>>>> Paul Bradley writes:

>>>>>> >Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First
>>>>>> >Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig
>>>>>> >is free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos,
>>>>>> >perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the
>>>>>> >managers at RealBig disliked.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Substitute "fascist society" for "free society" in the paragraph
>>>>>> above and the discussion begins to make some sense. Hell, it's even
>>>>>> historically accurate.

>>>>> Wrong, do you dispute the fact that RealBig corp. is free to refuse to 
>>>>> hire people for any reason whatsoever? Do you think I should not be 
>>>>> allowed to refuse to hire people because of their race or sexual
>>>>> orientation?

>>>>> Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire 
>>>>> someone for being jewish/black/homosexual???

>>>> Welcome to the 20th Century, moron.

>>> Really amazing how many so-called "freedom fighters" become STATIST if the
>>> proper buttons are pushed.

>> What are you talking about?

>> Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression.

>> If you want to live in a hut in Montana and shelter yourself from the
>> real world, feel free.  Otherwise, it may be a good idea to check out
>> social theories from the last hundred years.

> Please explain to me where in the Constitution the government is given the
> power to determin who I *must* associate with?? 

Given that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was upheld as Constitutional, I
would generally use that as an argument.

> If I decide that I do not
> wish to do business with anyone who's last name begins with the letter "R"
> what gives you the right to say that I must?!?

No one.  In fact, sometimes I wish that you would :-).

On the other hand, if a law were passed that made it illegal, and the
Supreme Court found it constitutional, then it would be.

-- 
Colin

At 12:55 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote:
>William H Geiger writes:

[snip by me]

>> Really amazing how many so-called "freedom fighters" become STATIST if the
>> proper buttons are pushed.
>
>What are you talking about?
>
>Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression.

Oppression, in terms of private entities and citizens, is in the eye
of the beholder.  What you call oppression could just as easily be
interpreted as my right to free expression.  If I choose not to
associate with someone, for whatever reason, that's my right.  It's
just as much your right to not associate in any way with someone
who would treat you as such, and to deal only with people who will
not treat you that way.  That's how a free market and free society
works.

It's oppression if I not only refuse to hire you, but also interfere
with you going about getting a job somewhere else.  But until I
actively try to keep you from persuing your own rights independent of
mine, I should have the perfect right to make my own decisions on
whether or not I associate with you.

I think there's a clearer case of oppression with regards to the
government's laws dictating who *HAS* to be hired.  That's an obvious
lessening of my right to discriminate as to whom I do and do not want
to deal with.  Where else in this society is this behavior mandated?
Do I have to sit in public with a racially diverse group of people?
Do I have to make it a point to talk to at least one Asian person
every day?  What's the difference?

>If you want to live in a hut in Montana and shelter yourself from the
>real world, feel free.  Otherwise, it may be a good idea to check out
>social theories from the last hundred years.

That's ridiculous.  No one is sheltering themselves from the real world
here.  We're just questioning the dogma of these "real world experts."
Do you really think it's prudent to believe everything someone offers
up because they have an academic or "official" title behind their name?
Or a large portion of government to stand behind them?  I put more
faith in my own perception than anyone else's.

>
>-- 
>Colin
>
>