king@kestrel.arpa (08/27/86)
Return-path: <@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 19:03:35 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Cost of Justice
To: TESTA-J%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
. . . [omitted point-counterpoint]
> You can't put a monetary value on rape (unless the victim was
>a prostitute).
What??? It is more ok to rape prostitutes???
No. I didn't say that.
Prostitution should be legal. (It already is in Nevada.)
Conservatives oppose prostitution. Liberals sometimes advocate it,
but are confused by the contradiction:
1) Nobody should be forced to have sex against their will.
2) Any business person should sell their wares to anyone with
money, as has been pretty generally agreed to since the 1960s
lunch counter boycotts.
3) Anything two consenting adults choose to do is ok.
There is no way to believe both 1 and 2 and to advocate
legalization of prostitution. But there is no way to believe 3
without advocating legalization of prostitution. A paradox.
Everyone agrees on point 1. Where liberals go wrong is with
point 2. Not everyone agrees that any customer must be served.
Libertarians are the only ones to advocate both freedom and a
consistent political system.
I don't understand. 1> 2> and 3> taken together don't lead to a
contradiction, anymore than
a> nobody should be forced to cook for others against their will
b> A lunch counter should sell to any customer with money
c> Selling lunches is okay
I don't necessarily agree with 2>, but it does not strike me as
inconsistent to codify a principle that if you are in a certain
business you should serve all customers. It is not nonsensical to say
that a prostitute can't refuse customers.
-dick
-------king@KESTREL.ARPA (09/04/86)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 23:00:16 pdt From: king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King) a> nobody should be forced to cook for others against their will b> A lunch counter should sell to any customer with money c> Selling lunches is okay I don't necessarily agree with 2>, but it does not strike me as inconsistent to codify a principle that if you are in a certain business you should serve all customers. It is not nonsensical to say that a prostitute can't refuse customers. -dick I don't often reply to my own mail :-), but I hope I didn't throw an impression that I advocate that a prostitute loses the right to have her rapists arrested. Prositiutes have that right, as lunch counter operators have the right not to be forced to cook on their own time. I only claim that there is no immediate inconsistency in a principle that owners of a public business must serve all comers AT THAT PLACE OF BUSINESS. -dick -------