On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Tim May wrote:

If a venue or site or company or piece of property is privately-owned, then all liberty-advocating persons would certainly say the owners have every right to tell lesbians and queers to stay out.

"If you don't want to see lesbians kiss, come to PacBell Park!"

So how do you feel, for instance, about bullying in the form of cooperative isolation of someone by his/her peers? Certainly everybody has the /right/ not to speak to someone... Only that sort of thing harms people more than an occasional, physical punch, something which few liberty-advocating people would say is tolerable. I think liberty should carry a pricetag of tolerance. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Tim May wrote:

Government has no role whatsoever to play in such actions, which in the U.S., at least, and for the foreseeable future, are supposedly protected by the "freedom of association" language of the Constitution.

First there is no 'freedom of association' in the Constitution. Second, yes, we need government to protect the idividuals rights of expression from people like yourself who would do harm to them if they chose to participate in an act you didn't like (mind you the act wouldn't interfere with your expression or property), simply because you didn't like it. Face it Tim, you're a bigot. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Steven Furlong wrote:

Jim Choate wrote:

...

First there is no 'freedom of association' in the Constitution.

Assuming that you're talking about the US Constitution, shall we start with the 9th Amendment?

But not one of those documents is IN the Constitution. So you'll have to fight (not that I agree with this aspect) to get them accepted. After all there is nothing to keep one from using the 'Communist Manifesto' for a reference document with respect to unalienable rights. What the Constitution DOES say is that with respect to inter-state commerce the federals can regulate it. 'Commerce' has two definitions. The first is the commenest which is transfer of goods and services. The second, less well known, is the interactions of individuals. So it is clear the federals have a direct stipulation to regulate inter-state commerce and that included person-to-person interactions. So much for inter-state freedom to associate. Now what about intra-state? There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the application of this basic federal principle to the states within their boundaries. So, per the 10th the question of whether an individual had free association within the state would be guided by the state Constitution. It should be obvious that there is no fundamental 'right to associate'. People have a right to be left alone. People have a right to protect themselves so they have a right to keep you and your burglar budies (for example) apart so long as there is a reasonable snowballs chance in hell of you burglarizing anyone. You don't have a 'freedom to associate' that would let you stroll into a prison and have exchanges with one or more prisoners unsupervised. The best one can hope for is that in the pursuit of happiness people must associate with other people. Within the bounds of the inter-state commerce clause and the 1st and 4th Amendment the federal goverment can't regulate your behaviour. You can associate with anyone provided there isn't reasonable cause to keep you apart. Under our Constitution the only reasonable cause acceptable is that the association will cause a crime to be commited (and people squeeze that baby for all it's worth). ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 05:02:20AM -0400, Tim May wrote: <>

As for your country, Finland, might I suggest you start letting in large numbers of refugees and other "darkies"? Countries like Finland and Sweden are fond of yapping about the discrimination in the U.S., but are predictably lacking in letting in large numbers of Gypsies, Romanians, Nigerians, Sierra Leonans, Turks, and other such races.

Your talking out of your ass. I can't speak for Finland, but around 20% of the Swedish population is first or second generation immigrant - with Africa, the Balkans, and Turkey making up a large part of that percentage. Come to Stockholm yourself if you don't believe me.

Niggardly of them, it would seem.

Let's see what happens when the average Swede or Finn is paying 70% of his income in taxes to support illiterate, thieving peasants and Gypsies.

Come look. Personally I believe that broders should be completely open, but Sweden cannot be attacked from an international perspective for it's immigration policies during the last 30 years, and unlike in most other countries there is not a single xenophobic or even mildly anti-immigration party with seats in the Swedish parlament. Socialism is bullshit, and so is the Swedish regime, and so was the comment you replied to - but you'll have to pick your arguments better than that.

--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.

-- 'DeCSS would be fine. Where is it?' 'Here,' Montag touched his head. 'Ah,' Granger smiled and nodded. Oskar Sandberg md98-osa@nada.kth.se

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.

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.

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Tim May wrote:

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.

In my mind, that is a rather fine line.

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.

True, provided you endow an owner with such rights. I'm not ready to do that offhand - I have a rather more fine grained view of property rights which distinquishes the right to ownership per se, the ability to profit from the property, the ability of others to utilize the property (without diminishing its value to the owner) and any extra obligations which come with any given type of property (like fairness of utilization in certain situations). Those distinctions come in very handy when talking about intellectual property rights (and especially their abolition). But let's stop this line of discussion here. Here we obviously have such a basic difference in viewpoint that it probably cannot be reconsiled without considerable bloodshed.

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.

Actually I'm thinking more in terms of the society instead of the state. But I agree. Forcing (in)action at gunpoint is something I find repulsive regardless of who's behind the piece.

But you need to think and read deeply about the nature of rights, and the dangers of enforcing "politeness" rules.

I do. I just don't trust that individuals can look out for their rights as easily as you do. That may have something to do with my Finnish background. (Finland, in my mind, is a fair, sufficiently rational, and remarkably open one but also one of the more intrusive. It's also subject to the dreaded regulatory bloat. EU also adds its complications.) This seems like a difference in viewpoint over the preferred role of individuals vis-a-vis groups in the maintenance of liberties.

By the way, market forces are often so powerful in ending discrimination that it is _states_ (governments) which seek to maintain discrimination.

I know and agree. But OTOH, we do have the opposite thing happening for religious/moral/ideological reasons in your Bible Belt, in European Neo-Nazi circles and alike. The problem is that while most liberal ideas go hand in hand with economic theory, the fundamental assumptions of the latter do not always apply when we look at social phenomena. Economic models are also steady-state or asymptotic ones, which means that the slow or uncertain temporal evolution of markets doesn't always form an acceptably stable basis for social practices. The Great Depression gives a first class example of how market economy can occasionally bifurcate even when in theory the system has a nice stable point. Conditioning basic liberties on like systems isn't always a good idea, then. But I do admit that the basic reasoning is sound and that aiming for liberties through emergence instead of regulation is the more robust way.

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.

Agreed. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university