Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
Forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:50:01 -0500 (CDT) From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com> Subject: Re: A Libertine Question
As long as you are enforcing it on everyone, I don't think you'd have a problem, but to force some one from cooking food for homeless people, and allow a family barbeque, is IMO wrong.
Not at all. Businesses have no rights, individuals do. Businesses have a responsibility to protect their patrons (if you don't think so ask all the folks in Japan or the people here in Austin sick from Strawberries and Blueberries they bought at the local HEB). Individuals have a right to privacy, that includes cooking themselves food without harrassment. Business on the other hand are selling products of potentialy questionable quality. A reasonable person recognizes that such a business has two ways of fulfilling its responsiblities. They can either submit to regulation and quality control from the local municipality or else they can hang signs about their place of business declaring "Caveat Emptor: Our food may be tainted, eat at your own risk". Which do you think is the more reasonable?
If it is unsafe/unsanitary to cook food in a certain way, it is unsafe/unsanitary. Selective enforcement is wrong.
Not at all. I have a right to kill myself with bad cooking if I choose. I do not have the right to kill another, especialy a stranger, without their prior consent. I guess it would be ok if a food vendor were to ask you if you minded being killed by their product, but I doubt many of them would be in business next week, let alone sell many hot dogs. People and businesses are not the same. Jim Choate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Jim Choate asked:
A reasonable person recognizes that such a business has two ways of fulfilling its responsiblities. They can either submit to regulation and quality control from the local municipality or else they can hang signs about their place of business declaring "Caveat Emptor: Our food may be tainted, eat at your own risk". Which do you think is the more reasonable?
It would be nice if businesses were offered that choice. I would choose the second, myself. Only my sign would say, "Our food is guaranteed not tainted by the Acme insurance company, not some corrupt government." The problem is, governments do not allow businesses nor consumers to make that sort of choice. With them it's, "my way or the highway" (or harassment and jail actually).
People and businesses are not the same.
Until Jim shows me a business that isn't owned and operated by people, I'll have to respectfully disagree. Businesses are just people acting alone or in concert. Actions are what count, not whether the action is of a pecuniary nature or not. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
participants (2)
-
Jim Choate -
Sandy Sandfort