On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 02:44:44AM +0100, Anonymous wrote: > But let's cut to the chase. Assume that all private grocery > store owners want to exclude people from their stores. Now > assume that 100% of them agree that effective Tuesday, only > those people who have a receipt for a $100 or more donation to > George W Bush (or Hillary Clinton, whatever) may enter their > property to shop for groceries. > > Their right? Why not?
Let me take your hypothetical and move it closer to home.* I take photographs and occasionally license them or sell prints. I post some general terms on my website: http://www.mccullagh.org/cgi-bin/photodownload.cgi?name=licensing-conditions Yes, I have the right to license (sell) my photos only to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, or socialist Eurotrash, as Tim might call them. And these same folks have the right to shop elsewhere if they conclude my terms are onerous or objectionable. In fact, I've declined to do business with the Disclosure Project, a we've-seen-UFOs type of group, because I didn't want to support their cause. (http://www.mccullagh.org/theme/disclosure-project-ufo-may01.html) Many newspapers and magazines will choose not to do business with people who want to use their photographs for derogatory purposes. (http://www.politechbot.com/p-03181.html) And so on. This is a Good Thing. It's called voluntary transactions, and it's part of living in a free society. -Declan * Yes, all this assumes that intellectual property laws exist, but the arguments are true in general. I chose to switch the hypothetical since yours about grocery stores muddles things -- I can imagine complaints that somehow that should be different, as if people would starve without giving $$$ to Hillary.
