At 6:31 AM -0400 9/26/00, Sampo A Syreeni wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Tim May wrote:
I think "cooperative isolation of someone" is a natural thing. Shunning, isolation, expulsion...it's how groups deal with characters they don't like.
Indeed. Lynch mobs are a rational extension of the basic principle.
Lynching is an act of physical aggression, not at all the same thing as choosing not to trade with someone, not to invite him into one's home, not to interact with him.
An empty comment. "Tolerance" subsumes the right of some to be "intolerant."
Yes it does, doesn't it. But the sense I use the word in mostly operates wrt intangible things - physically removing someone from a venue isn't covered.
If Alice doesn't want Bob in _her_ "venue" (shop, home, ballpark, company, whatever), then she can of course tell him to leave and not come back. Or even physically remove him if he refuses to leave.
Frankly, "discrimination" ought to be a goal, not the "hateword" it has become since the commies took over in the 60s.
Huh? Obviously you have never been confronted with expert discrimination yourself.
What I personally like or dislike has no bearing on the underlying principles.
... Actually you do not need 70% taxes to get this effect. It already exists, as you so nicely pointed out. But... This particular point has very little to do with removing the lesbians from a venue (ballpark, was it?) - in fact, the financial incentive of your example could be used to argue for inviting the poor gals back in. Paying customers, see...
Sure, and the economic incentives for "not discriminating" are well-known. This is why most shops _DO NOT_ discriminate on any simplistic basis: they _want_ all of the paying customers they can get. We were not discussing the _practical_ issue of whether a sports stadium _is wise_ to discriminate against lesbians, we were instead discussing whether the State has a valid interest in intervening to _stop_ such discrimination at gunpoint. You really need to think about these issues more deeply. You're obviously a smart guy, and a fine writer in English (considering your name and location, and achievement indeed). But you need to think and read deeply about the nature of rights, and the dangers of enforcing "politeness" rules. By the way, market forces are often so powerful in ending discrimination that it is _states_ (governments) which seek to maintain discrimination. For example, companies in South Africa sought to hire African-Americans, er, blacks, to work in companies during the economic booms of the late 40s and into the 50s. IBM, in particular, was one such company. It was the Boer-dominated government of the RSA which reacted to this "market development" by imposing the draconian apartheid laws. Similarly, Christian Germans had been dealing with Jews for centuries, even millennia. Besides the state-sponsored pogroms of the earlier centuries (a way of whipping up support for the local kinds and satraps), it took the organized state power of the National Socialists in the 30s to carry out the Final Solution. Krystalnacht was organized by the Nazi party and carried out by their brownshirts and paid agents. Markets aren't "perfect" (not that such a thing has a lot of meaning), but greed and self-interest usually results in less discrimination than when governments are the ones enforcing the laws. Enlightened self-interest usually means that merchants deal with _everyone_. It takes a very powerful reason for shunning or expulsion to occur. --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.