At 12:40 PM -0400 9/26/00, Steven Furlong wrote:
You can throw the post-Civil War American south into the mix, too. Some Southern politicians were distressed that shop-keepers were dealing with negroes, and passed laws to prevent that.
This is a point that warrants comment. People often have "discriminatory" (or bigoted, prejudicial, parochial, etc.) views. They may not like blacks, or whites, or lesbians, or straights, or cripples, or blondes, or whatever. Usually enlightened self-interest prevails. They don't quit their jobs just because there are Asians working in the same building, they don't avoid a movie theater just because there may be blacks allowed in, and they don't turn away a customer at their shop just because that customer is in a wheelchair. However, people are also inclined to "let others do it." For example, they vote to pass criminal laws TO BE ENFORCED BY OTHERS. Where they wouldn't spend a single dime out of their own pocket to enforce laws about what someone smokes in their own home, they are often willing to help get laws passed which result in "someone else" enforcing such laws. (There are interesting reasons why this is so. Firstly, the "splitting the dinner bill evenly" effect: the costs of unwise choices are shared and personal accountability is reduced. This is a game theory point which goes a long way to explaining why we end up with as much government as we do. Secondly, the psychological "distancing" effect: "I'm not the one arresting my neighbor John for growing marijuana...it's the police doing it." Thirdly, political processes quickly become engulfed by issues of rent-seeking, graft, and special interests. So we end up with lots of laws designed to favor certain groups, certain contributors to campaigns, those who paid bribes, etc.) A good example of these effects at work, and the issue of "laws against discrimination," is the public school system. With private schools, where acceptance of a student is at the discretion of the private school, "bizarre behavior" tends to get damped out. While there might be lesbian students (surely there are!), those wishing to remain in the school fall into a time-honored system of beeing somewhat discreet about their tendencies. Ditto for those with Neo-Nazi beliefs, those with anarchist tendencies, etc. (BTW, my own views are quite controversial. But I am not reliant on an employer whom I need to not offend, nor am I in a private school, nor am I generally dependent in any way on what other people think. I worked and saved and am now independent. My only issue is with my ISP, and he told me years ago that nothing I might write would result in my Internet account being cancelled. And of course he has every right to cancel me if he so chooses...it's his property, not mine.) Back to those student lesbians.... So, in a private school, certain behaviors are toned-down, because the students wish to remain at the school. Contrast this with today's _public_ schools. Because students (and their parents) know that they have a "right" to be in the school, essentially "anything goes." A child who beats up other students, who spits on the floor, who mumbles to himself during class...this child _cannot_ be removed from the public school system. At worst, he will be offered his own private tutor in a separate location. (One wonders how long even this will last before the lawyers jump in to claim that "separate but equal" is unconstitutitonal.) If anyone doubts me, the respected American television show, "60 Minutes," reported on the case of the teenaged boy who did just what I described above...and could not be removed by the school or the school system. How long would this child have lasted at a private school? Not long. (I understand that there are compelling issues of taxation and "public facilities" at work here. A parent who has been forced to pay taxes for N years to support public schools is justified in wanting his kid in the public school system. This is first and foremost an example of why schools should be privatized. The argument that schools are a "necessity" is not persuasive. Food is also a necessity, and yet grocery stores and supermarkets are all private in the U.S. (not counting military base commissaries and the like). This is a separate issue, for another article.) When someone knows they cannot be removed, this reduces the incentives for moderation. The lesbians start kissing in highly public displays and the hooligans start spitting. This is the real "tragedy of the commons." A good argument for reducing the size of the commons, for privatizing what can and should be privatized. Instead, we are seeing an expansion of the public sphere. This is where laws denying a property owner's right to establish his own rules for his own property take us. That teenaged hooligan who spits on the classroom floor will probably be hiring a lawyer to clam that it is his "right" to spit on the floor of restaurants and shops. We can't allow discrimination, can we? --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.