[Off topic]Discrimination

[Lizard]

At 02:25 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote:

>
>The logic is about patterns of discrimination of society and the State
>acting as a social engineer to remove the patterns.

In other words, rights belong to the collective, not to the individual. If
I deny Joe Smith a job for an 'approved' reason (which still has nothing to
do with his competence), then, too bad for Joe. But if I deny it for an
'unapproved' reason, equally unrelated to his competance, then I am denying
the job to ALL people who share that trait, everywhere. That's a
collectivist viewpoint.

Either a person -- a single, unique, individual -- has a right to compel
someone else to serve him, or he does not. The reasons for denying service
are irrelevant TO THAT INDIVIDUAL.

>It is about basic human decency, and giving a person a fighting chance.

All of which is fine, but why should it be compelled? Didn't you once say
that liberalism made the assumption that we were basically moral and should
be free to act, rather than the conservative view that we were basically
immoral and should be restrained?

>If society, in general, discriminated against people with freckles, it
>is likely that it would be made illegal.

So what good does this do the person dicriminated against, if there is NOT
a 'pattern' of it? He's still out of a job. This is the key point:It is the
INDIVIDUAL that matters. 

>> (Yes, it is perfectly legal to not hire someone based on star sign,
>> political affiliation, or having freckles.)
>
>> No human being has a right to compel service from another human being.
>
>No majority group has a right to discriminate against a minority.

There are no groups. There are only individuals. A job, or an offer of
goods or services, occurs between individuals -- not groups. If I am denied
employment, YOUR bank account does not shrink. If you are granted a high
paying job, I do not get rich. My hunger is not yours;yours is not mine. 

Further, every individual has a right to choose who they will and will not
associate with, based on whatever criteria they wish. I don't date mundanes
(non-fen). While the inability to have me as a boyfriend is no great loss,
I am nonetheless 'discriminating' against a large %age of the female
population (and 100% of the male population, FWIW). (Granted, a far larger
%age of the female population discriminates against me, as they refuse to
date overweight, unattractive, socially inept nerds. Whom do I sue?)

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

Most people would claim not associating with me is liberating, not oppressing.

How is person 'a' oppressed because person 'b' decides, for whatever
reason, not to like them?