At 12:07 AM 8/27/00 -0400, petro wrote:
>>Oh, that's good. Let's say I own and live in a large house with
>>several vacant apartments. Shouldn't I be able to stop arbitrary
>>people from moving in? Even if they're willing to pay, should I be
>>able to prevent them from moving in if they smoke or want to have
>>loud parties?
>
> That doesn't stop them from obtaining decent housing, it only
>stops them from living in your building.
>
> Now, if the *LAW* (i.e. the government) said that you were
>not allowed to rent to someone because of <x> (where <x> is something
>trivial like skin color or religion) then that is a violation of that
>persons rights, as well as a violation of your right to do with your
>property as you will.
>
Here Mr. Petro hits it right on. It is not a violation of 1st amendment
rights if I don't want
to accept your advertisement. It would be if taxpayers paid for that
prohibition, ie
if laws used the violence of the state to enforce it. Dig: voluntary
apartheid
is moral, though nasty in many belief systems. Involuntary anti-apartheid
is unconditionally immoral.
Coercion is what its about. Violence, and/or threat of.
Similarly with property rights. But current US law puts social engineering
above
property rights. US law is saturated with social engineering laws that
have nothing
to do with violations of others' rights.
