throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (07/21/86)
> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) >> [analogy between malls and private residences] > The fatal flaw in this analogy, and the one which keeps the controversy > alive, is this: > > Owners of shopping malls don't "choose to allow" the general public on > their property. They *require* the general public to use their property > in order for it to fulfill its function. On the other hand, your home > has no such need for the attention of the general public. If this is all that keeps the controversy alive, it is dead meat. :-) In a mall, you got your shoppers, your merchants, your delivery personell, and so on. In a private residence, you got your mail carriers, your meter readers, your sub-leasors, and so on. The analogy isn't even strained. In each case there is a subset of "the general public" that is required and desired, and another subset that is not. The only difference is the specific subsets involved. [ Side note: If the subset of the general public that is required and desired for the operation of a private residence actually goes to zero, the owner is then technically called a "hermit". Or sometimes an Old rot13(Sneg). :-) ] -- Note: followup-to has been set to net.politics. Also-Note: If you want me to hear a reply, send me mail. I don't subscribe to net.politics regularly. -- "A Libertarian is just an anarchist on the gold standard." --- Alexis Gilliland -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw