diy@sb6.UUCP (D. I. Young) (06/15/84)
Call it what you want (paranoia, crybaby, etc.) but I keep getting this image
of the return of the signs I used to see when I was growing up in South Carolina
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
I saw those signs in restaurants where I was not allowed to eat in. Please
try to remember that this was something that *I* experienced, it's not second-
hand info. My homeroom teacher explained to my high school class that that
was a way that the shop owners were trying to get around the Civil Rights
Bill, which in effect said that we (blacks) could not be denied something
simply because we were black. So in high school I had to learn not only the
things they were taeching academically, but also that somehow I was just as
equal a human being as a white kid my age. "Hey I CAN go into Edward's dept.
store and no longer drink out of the 'COLORED' water fountain." Again, these
are real and vivid memories of things I experienced.
You might note my statement regarding the Civil Rights Bill, and you may say
"Aha! The Civil Rights Bill is NOT a BLACK civil rights bill." And you
would be right. But when I said that I was remembering that the MAIN REASON
THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL was signed was after a whole lot of marching and burning
done by blacks during the 60's, when the "WHITE ONLY" signs were removed from
businesses. A local visit to your library might give you some pictures as
well as well as other info.
Much has been ballyhood about the Reagan administration's retrenchment on
civil rights issues, and as far as I'm concerned it's about true. I admit
that I thought I made a mistake one time when I overheard a conversation in
my office among some of my co-workers, all white. I heard a statement to the
effect that his admnistration was finally going to stop this shit and put
"them back in their place". The mistake I made was in not realizing they were
talking about blacks AND women. It wasn't until a little deeper in the conver--
sation when I heard the satement "...blacks want *everything*..." (emphasis
their's) that I realized what was going on. My mistake, I did not deal with
these guys directly ("What do you mean by putting blacks in their place?")
but nevertheless wondered just what they menat by everything.
So we have a rash of news stories about the Justice Department and/or the
Supreme Court reversing this law or amemnding that law or taking this position
on civil rights contrary to previous administrations or appointing people to
"INDEPENDENT" commissions who agree with their point of view. We have the
situation regarding the King bill and the communist accusations, and after it
was publicly known that Hoover waged a smear and harrassment campaign against
King ("WHY DON'T YOU JUST KILL YOURSELF AND MAKE IT EASIER") we get the president respond to a question about his feelings by saying "We'll know in 35 years
won't we?"
So the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on the "last hired, first fired" issue
really didn't surprise me. But when I think that Reagan, if re-elected, may be
appointing new members to the Supreme Court, and I think about the mood of the
country as I see it and feel it (based on my everyday social contacts as well as
what I read/hear in the news) I see adefinite drift towards my high school days.
Attitude is what I'm talking about. I read this morning where the Baptists have
passed a law wherein women will NOT be allowed to be ordained as ministers. This
is the NATIONAL group, folks. I read a lot of articles in this newsgroup that
more often than not start with "Why should I..." and I remember the things that
Meese has said and if Reagan wins they'll try to get him the Attorney General's
job and then Reagan would be in a position to appoint new members to the Supreme
Court...whew!!
So it would not surprise me that a second Reagan term would produce a 1986
mination suit, that would say "That business/
real estate group/club doesn't really HAVE to accept/serve people, because
it IS *THEIR* business, and THEY have a right to run it as they please."
It's 1986, I own a restaurant, and I don't particularly care for white people.
It's ok if they have their own restaurants, I have nothing against them owning
anything, but let them go to their own place. It's MY store, and dammit, if
I don't want to serve them I don't have to. Separate but equal is ok with me.
The government has no right to make me let them in. Same with the apartment
building I own. I just don't want whites to live their, and dammit it's my
apartments so I should run it as I please!!!
do you see what I'm getting at? So, if you think I'm just paranoid, please
don't flame against me but please reassure me, and I hope to hell that I *am*
wrong, but I see the "Separate but equal" days returning. Two incidents come
to mind: a recent event here in Georgia where some black kids were denied
admittance to a Boy Scout troop and they were told that it was the organizatoion
plans to start "one for them" in the near future. And there is the case of
the black lady who was a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution
who was involved in a similar situation, although I can't remember the details.
I won't guess at the details because instead of talking about the thrust of tmy
article someone will flame about my screwing up the facts of the DAR incident.
But I do remember it was along the lines of "I don't mind you doing this, but
do it with your own". And that's not good for anyone and not good for the
development of the country.
a lot more I could say, but I think I've both vented my spleen :-) and also
offered my comments on something I feel that's happening that ain't so good
for EVERYBODY!!!
dennisward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (06/18/84)
[]
We should all be aware of the fact that Ronald Reagan was elected
by ~25% of those qualified to vote, and that he was elected by
the whitest, oldest, richest and most male group of voters
to vote in recent history.
The only way the privileged can keep their control of the White
House is to convince the unprivileged that they may as well just
stay home, there ain't no use to go vote.
And the only problem I have with that is that I suspect that that's
right. With the prospect of choosing between Ray-gun and Fritz facing
me, my level of apathy is reaching terminal proportions.
Why haven't we had a decent president (or even candidate) since
Kennedy?
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (06/19/84)
A decent President since Kennedy? I suggest you read the latest on Kennedy (re: N Y. Times, Sunday, June 10th, Book Section). He was all words and no action. T. C. Wheeler
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (06/19/84)
-- >> Why haven't we had a decent president (or even candidate) since >> Kennedy? >> -- >> Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD No decent candidates? What about Pat Paulsen, 1968? He was clearly the most intelligent, with Eldridge Cleaver (that's the *OLD* E. C.) close behind, followed by some dorks with delusions of godhood. I had a hard time choosing between Paulsen and Cleaver in '68. There've been good candidates--serious ones (certainly in the primaries) --but nobody votes for them. What can I say? America gets the government it deserves. Ah, '68: "The police are not there to create disorder. The police are there to preserve disorder." Well, you had to be there. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 19 Jun 84 [1 Messidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (06/20/84)
From: ward@hao.UUCP: Why haven't we had a decent president (or even candidate) since Kennedy? ------------- And what was so good about Kennedy??
mwm@ea.UUCP (06/23/84)
#R:sb6:-16200:ea:10100052:000:2785 ea!mwm Jun 22 18:40:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / sb6!diy / 11:45 pm Jun 17, 1984 */ > Call it what you want (paranoia, crybaby, etc.) but I keep getting this image > of the return of the signs I used to see when I was growing up in South Carolina > > "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I hate to say this, but most restaurants have this right now. A good example is the oft-seen sign "No shoes, no shirt, no service." Their are other good reasons for refusing service to people; all them are related to the actions that person takes, and none to details like race or sex. > It's 1986, I own a restaurant, and I don't particularly care for white people. > It's ok if they have their own restaurants, I have nothing against them owning > anything, but let them go to their own place. It's MY store, and dammit, if > I don't want to serve them I don't have to. Separate but equal is ok with me. > The government has no right to make me let them in. Same with the apartment > building I own. I just don't want whites to live their, and dammit it's my > apartments so I should run it as I please!!! That's fine, if the law allows it. You get your choice - either prejudiced practices are legal, in which case you can exclude whites from your <whatever>, *and* blacks can be excluded for their color; or prejudiced practices are illegal, and you have to let whites and blacks into your place of business, bar other good reasons for not letting them in. > So it would not surprise me that a second Reagan term would produce a 1986 > mination suit, that would say "That business/ > real estate group/club doesn't really HAVE to accept/serve people, because > it IS *THEIR* business, and THEY have a right to run it as they please." This brings up an interesting point: why do we pick on businesses, and not consumers? For instance, suppose you live in a neighborhood where a Vietnamese refuge family has set up a small restaurant. Also suppose that the bulk of the people in the neighborhood don't eat at the restaurant because they are prejudiced against Vietnamese. Of course, you have a "valid" reason for not eating there. Now, the Vietnamese family is going to be hurt a lot more by this prejudiced practice than you are by not being allowed into some places. After all, you should have "separate but equal" (silly concept, that) facilities, whereas these Vietnamese are likely to loose their livelyhood (sp?). How should we correct this? The obvious solution is to require people to eat some percentage of their meals out at the Vietnamese restaurant. After all, those who aren't prejudiced would anyway.... Does anyone really think this is reasonable? If so, why? If you don't, how do you justify placing restrictions on a business that you wouldn't place on a person? <mike
edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) (06/27/84)
+ > This brings up an interesting point: why do we pick on businesses, and not > consumers? . . . > Does anyone really think this is reasonable? If so, why? If you don't, how > do you justify placing restrictions on a business that you wouldn't place > on a person? > > <mike Really, now. How do you justify placing restrictions on a government that you wouldn't place on a person? And no value judgements on the relative worthiness of businesses vs. governments. The answer is a simple one: like any other form of law, restrictions on business practices are (ostensibly) for the good of the community at large. In the U.S., freedom is usually considered a large component of this public good. But tradeoffs need to be made between the freedoms allowed people: the freedom to be secure in person and property must supercede any supposed freedom for assult or larceny. And the freedom of being treated equally must supercede the freedom to discriminate against people on racial or sexual grounds. However, the highest freedom is that of self-determination. Outlawing discrimination in personal choice would go against this. On the other hand, outlawing discrimination in commerce enhances self-determination. End of civics lesson. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/30/84)
#R:sb6:-16200:inmet:7800100:000:4107 inmet!nrh Jun 28 14:47:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / rand-uni!edhall / 2:06 am Jun 27, 1984 >+ >> This brings up an interesting point: why do we pick on businesses, and not >> consumers? > . . . >> Does anyone really think this is reasonable? If so, why? If you don't, how >> do you justify placing restrictions on a business that you wouldn't place >> on a person? >> >> <mike > >Really, now. How do you justify placing restrictions on a government >that you wouldn't place on a person? And no value judgements on the >relative worthiness of businesses vs. governments. > Excuse me -- What restriction was he placing on the government that he wouldn't place on a person? I wouldn't mind governments so long as they kept to the same rules that people do: no theft (taxation) is a big one, or do you agree that I personally should have the right to extort money from you "because you're under my protection", and put you in jail if you didn't pay up? >The answer is a simple one: like any other form of law, restrictions on >business practices are (ostensibly) for the good of the community at >large. In the U.S., freedom is usually considered a large component of >this public good. But tradeoffs need to be made between the freedoms >allowed people: the freedom to be secure in person and property must >supercede any supposed freedom for assault or larceny. And the freedom >of being treated equally must supercede the freedom to discriminate >against people on racial or sexual grounds. It even SOUNDS awkward: the "freedom of being treated equally". Let me let you in on a little secret: the idea behind this country had to do with being "created" equally, and with equality before the LAW. The freedom of being treated equally means that you get to go to the olympics and claim the gold medal because you are "equal" to the person who comes in first. It means that you can go before a court and demand to be cut in on Howard Hughes' fortune because you are to be treated "equally" with everyone else. It means you may force people who do not like you to associate with you. It means that you may force women who do not find you attractive to sleep with you. This notion of "freedom of being treated equally" can be mighty handy if you follow out its ramifications. It's a little tough on freedom, though. >However, the highest >freedom is that of self-determination. Outlawing discrimination in >personal choice would go against this. On the other hand, outlawing >discrimination in commerce enhances self-determination. An intriguing dichotomy. "Commerce" vs. "personal choice". You've missed Mike's point: the businesses are run by people. It is a matter of personal choice (or should be) who they do business with. If you include the self-determination of both the consumer and the producer, and think about it for a while, you'll find, I think, that neither one is as free after the government comes around telling them that they MUST deal. And what about the producer's "freedom of self-determination"? If you wish to combat bigotry, I'm all for it. If you wish to do it by enhancing the power of the state by introducing such concepts as the "freedom of being treated equally", and with no regards for the self-determination of the bigots, forget it. Private bigots are disgusting, but the appropriate tools against them (boycott, ostracism, education) do not involve interfering with their decisions at gunpoint. Public bigots -- the ones who would destroy equality before law are another matter. They are a horrible danger and must be dealt with immediately. Do I contradict myself? Am I here saying that a government has less right to be bigoted than a person? No. The simplest way to set the situation right would be to remove the Government's special right to initiate force. Failing that, though, the government IS special, and if you won't allow me to restrict it as I would a business (you won't allow me to curtail its "right" to initiate force), please allow me to curtail its power to discriminate on capricious (racial, sexual, religious) grounds.
mwm@ea.UUCP (07/04/84)
#R:sb6:-16200:ea:10100053:000:2539 ea!mwm Jul 3 16:29:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / rand-uni!edhall / 1:17 pm Jun 29, 1984 */ >Really, now. How do you justify placing restrictions on a government >that you wouldn't place on a person? And no value judgements on the >relative worthiness of businesses vs. governments. I don't justify such. The government ought to have to live under the same set of rules as people/businesses, but you'll never get a government to agree to that kind of restriction. It doesn't really matter, as the only thing that can place restrictions on a government is another government (or maybe a large multi-national corporation). >The answer is a simple one: like any other form of law, restrictions on >business practices are (ostensibly) for the good of the community at >large. In the U.S., freedom is usually considered a large component of >this public good. But tradeoffs need to be made between the freedoms >allowed people: the freedom to be secure in person and property must >supercede any supposed freedom for assult or larceny. And the freedom >of being treated equally must supercede the freedom to discriminate >against people on racial or sexual grounds. However, the highest >freedom is that of self-determination. Outlawing discrimination in >personal choice would go against this. On the other hand, outlawing >discrimination in commerce enhances self-determination. You missed the point of my question, which wasn't hard considering how well I (unintentionally) hid it. It boils down to: what is it about starting a business that causes your freedom to be restricted? Using my previous example again, having a wide variety of restaurants should be good for a community, and having one shut down because the community is prejudiced against the owner is almost certainly bad for a community. Why shouldn't the government take action to preserve the restaurant against prejudice, in a manner similar to the one it's already taken against in a different case of prejudice? I think the answer may be in the word 'ostensibly.' A valid answer would be that the current government-enforced solution is not really working for the good of the community. This now leaves two questions: 1) Is there some action other than something like AA applied to people to save the restaurant; and 2) is there some action other than the current set of laws that would better serve the community in handling the problems associated with bigotry? (Shooting the stupid sobs is probably a bit radical! :-) >End of civics lesson. Beginning of Q&A session. <mike
tac@teldata.UUCP () (07/11/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice) For those who missed it, the example mentioned had to do with an ethnic restaurant in a neighborhood where no one liked that kind of food. >> You missed the point of my question, which wasn't hard considering how well >> I (unintentionally) hid it. It boils down to: what is it about starting a >> business that causes your freedom to be restricted? Using my previous >> example again, having a wide variety of restaurants should be good for a >> community, and having one shut down because the community is prejudiced >> against the owner is almost certainly bad for a community. Why shouldn't >> the government take action to preserve the restaurant against prejudice, in >> a manner similar to the one it's already taken against in a different case >> of prejudice? >> >> >End of civics lesson. >> >> Beginning of Q&A session. >> >> <mike >> Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will), but aren't you proposing that we subsidize all restaurants? If we all have to eat at some of them some of the time, we are forced to subsidize each and every one. What you are telling me is that if there is an eatery in my neighborhood where the food is always burned, then served cold in puddles of grease, where the food is always rotten before it is cooked (and after), where there are always cigarette butts in the food because that is where the cook flicks them and the ashes, that I should be forced to go eat there because it would be bad for the community to close it down. Now admittedly the health department would have closed down the above example for the rotten food and detritus in it, but would have done nothing about the burned, cold, greasy food. Maybe if you get your way I'll open a health food restaurant which only serves raw wheat in 1 oz. servings at $5000.00 each. I could make a living off of all of the people that you force in to my business. Sounds distinctly like socialism to me: all restaurants are equal, and equally deserving of an income. The free enterprise system is dedicated to and founded on the precept that if you provide a good product people will provide you with a good income. When you go mucking around with it it no longer works correctly. I seldom eat at restaurants in my neighborhood (there aren't very many there), but I go to where ever the GOOD restaurants are. If the Vietnamese restaurant in the example you gave was GOOD, people would come from quite a ways to eat there despite any prejudice from the neighbors. Ostracism is one of the few ways we have to force unsavory individuals to behave in a socially acceptable manner. [Neglecting the violent approach, which I favor not.] Now if I have misread you and you were spouting sarcasm, I apologize. I heartily believe that if I own a business that purports to have the ten best minds in the world to solve your problems with, and if they all happen to be handicapped (disadvantaged?) black females, there should be no reason for me to hire a required percentage of orientals or chicanos. Wouldn't it be a nice world if we could all just be folks without prejudices? We might even be free then! From the Civics Lectern of Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac} An Ostracism A Day Keeps The *ssh*l*s Away. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not my employers!
mwm@ea.UUCP (07/16/84)
#R:sb6:-16200:ea:10100057:000:2069 ea!mwm Jul 16 10:40:00 1984 , >>> == me, > = Tom Condon <teldata!tac> >/***** ea:net.politics / teldata!tac / 11:08 pm Jul 11, 1984 */ >>> You missed the point of my question, which wasn't hard considering how well >>> I (unintentionally) hid it. It boils down to: what is it about starting a >>> business that causes your freedom to be restricted? >>> >>> <mike >>> >Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will), but aren't you proposing >that we subsidize all restaurants? What I said amounts to subsidizing all restaurants, yes indeedy. I didn't say we should do so, I didn't even say it was a good idea. >Maybe if you get your way I'll open a health food restaurant which >only serves raw wheat in 1 oz. servings at $5000.00 each. It isn't my way - I think it would be a *horrible* way to do things. >The free enterprise system is dedicated to and founded on the precept that >if you provide a good product people will provide you with a good income. >When you go mucking around with it it no longer works correctly. It's not clear that free enterprise works "correctly" before you start mucking around with it. Of course, that depends on how you define correctly. It'd be interesting to give a *real* free enterprise system (something the world has never had) a chance and see how it worked. >Now if I have misread you and you were spouting sarcasm, I apologize. No, I wasn't spouting sarcasm, I was trying to get a question answered. I'll try asking again (for the last time?): How do you justify passing laws that force non-prejudiced behavior on people who own/run companies, when you don't pass similar laws for people who don't own/run companies? Note: I am *not* advocating prejudiced behavior - I don't like nonsensical behavior. I'm trying to get the above question answered. The only *attempt* to answer the question has been Ed Halls (paraphrased) "The good of the community outways the freedom of people who own companies, but not the freedom of individuals." What you quoted from is my reply to that, pointing out that this may not be so. <mike
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (07/18/84)
``For many years now, you and I have been shushed like children
and told there are no simple answers to the complex problems
which are beyond our comprehension. Well, the truth is, there
*are* simple answers.''
[Ronald Reagan in his Inaugural message as Governer of California]
Mike,
I don't see any sense in assuming that the treatment of Government,
Businesses, and Individuals should be the same. It is a falacy to
assume that just because something simplifies a discussion it is
automatically true. Occam's razor does not apply well to politics.
As for the question of why should anti-discrimination laws apply to
how businesses treat individuals and not to how individuals treat
businesses: I thought I explained that. Though law often falls short
of the ideal, one of its purposes in this country is the promotion of
freedom and of equality of opportunity, *for the individual*. In
general the freedom of institutions, whether business, government, or
whatever, is subjugated to individual freedom. This is not an axiom--
just a strong tendancy, and arguably one of the greatest concepts upon
which our system of government is built. Alas, people--and government--
seem to forget that the purpose of government is service to the people,
and not self-perpetuation.
-Edtac@teldata.UUCP (07/25/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice) >> I'll try asking again (for the last time?): >> >> How do you justify passing laws that force non-prejudiced >> behavior on people who own/run companies, when you don't >> pass similar laws for people who don't own/run companies? >> >> Note: I am *not* advocating prejudiced behavior - I don't like nonsensical >> behavior. I'm trying to get the above question answered. The only *attempt* >> to answer the question has been Ed Halls (paraphrased) "The good of the >> community outways the freedom of people who own companies, but not the >> freedom of individuals." What you quoted from is my reply to that, pointing >> out that this may not be so. >> >> <mike I am sorry for not understanding the question the first time. The answer to the question is simply "You can't justify it." An important maxim to remember when setting out to right the wrongs of the world is: You can not legislate morals. If you try, someone will find a loophole. The only solution is that you must educate. The DarkAvenger and I (alas, he is leaving net.land...au revoir JJ) were discussing this just the other month, and came to the conlusion that the best way to combat black/white prejudice is to ensure that all children of each race to have a friend of the other race. That way they could learn that we are all "folks" at heart and quit fearing each other. When the fear leaves the equation we get only people. People are either OK, or not, based on their behavior. From the Soapbox of Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac} One Less Law A Day Keeps Opression Away. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not my employers!