John Oliver wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:23:37PM -0800, Neil Schneider wrote:
John Oliver wrote:
I am far more afraid of a society that commands me that
I must provide an equal service to everyone, regardless of the costs
borne by me, than I am of a society where I might be expected to pay
more when I want more of a good or service.
So you are against equal treatment?
Of course I am. So are you.
Two people contact you for your services. One needs one hour of your
time. The other needs ten. Are you going to charge them the same? No?
What's this? You aren't treating them "equally"?
The varying desire for a scarce resource (your time / space in an
airplane) results in a varying cost.
For the record, I'm also against "anti-discrimination" laws. I do not
believe that a bigot should be forced to rent their home to a black
family, for example. If I own my home or business, I should have the
ultimate say in who I serve and how. Maybe I decide I will only serve
red-haired people, or maybe I'll serve brunettes, too, but for twice the
price. What business is that of anyone but me? Those whom I refuse to
serve can, and will, seek service elsewheres. Someone else will see
blondes and brunettes and people with black hair who have money to
spend, and they'll see a fool refusing to take it. They will open a
competing business and serve those people. Maybe I will go out of
business because there aren't enough redheads to keep me solvent. Maybe
even a number of those redheads will be disgusted with me for refusing
to serve their blond or brunette friends, and will go patronize the
competition. But I do not believe that anyone, including "society", has
a right to force me to do business on any terms but my own, excluding,
of course, contracts that I freely enter into.
Isn't all that pretty much the definition (and justification) of
bigotry? All that's missing is the motivation for the definition.
The price of my time does not vary per hour, I couldn't care less if 8
hours in a day were paid for by one person or 8 people. I'm not sure I get
the argument.
---
"Society" aside, it's just common decency.
The problem starts (continues) to arise when you get with your neighbors
and all of you decide not to rent your houses to redheads, then home
purchasers in the area are not allowed to buy houses in your town because
they won't agree to not rent to redheads, etc. etc., the before long you
can't go see a Carrot Top show without hopping a plane to Vancouver. And
who wants that?
Was Woolworth's right to have separate but equal (which we know were not
equal), or just flat out whites-only lunch counters? NINA was okay?
Another thing to worry about for such business or home owners/renters is
enforcement. Eventually there will be enough angry redheads that a
double-barrel won't be able to take care of all of them. Your choice to
die that way, I guess.
-Matt
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
