vision2020
Re: free enterprise
Douglas,
I don't think this is a very difficult arguement to
make. A fundemental principal of the social contract to which we are all parties
to is; individuals shall not be denied the opportunity to access social goods
because of their membership in a social class, i.e. race, gender or sexual
orientation. The good provided by a restaurant is, to the degree that the
ability to provide that good is dependent upon others goods provided socially, a
social good. On which social goods is the good provided by the restaurant
dependent? The right to own property to begin with. Property rights
are a quality of neither property or the individual. It is a principal
contained within a social contract and is a very nuanced right. Society
agrees to protect your right to own property but that right is not absolute
(never has been). A few other social goods the restaurant good depends
upon are; a monetary system so that you don't need to worry about storing live
hogs or carry hens eggs about in your pockets, a transportation system that
allows food stuffs and the people to eat them to arrive at your restaurant in a
timely manner, and an educated citizenry that can afford to pay for the good
that your restaurant provides. The good provided by the restaurant is
therefore largely a social good and cannot, going back to the fundamental
principal of equal access, be denied to individuals based on their membership
within a social class.
With misgivings but a jolly heart,
Troy Merrill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 10:46
AM
Subject: free enterprise
Dear visionaries,
Carl Westburg is quite right. I forgot
to sign my post. I was bad. Can I still come to your restaurant?
In
response to Ted Moffett, I fully understand that the current legal situation
makes a distinction between speech and restaurant management. I want to know
why. How come? By what standard? What is so magical about speech? Why is the
First Amendment misunderstood and then absolutized? Why is the Tenth Amendment
ignored? Give me an argument, not a court decision. I know about the court
decisions, because the court decisions are causing the problem I am resisting.
If behavioral patterns have the same protections on someone else's private
property as does race, then where do we stop? Remember the basic question,
which is by what standard? Do I have to serve neo-Nazis? homosexuals?
heterosexuals? Congressmen? quilters? kleptomaniacs? smokers? Masons? barefoot
teenagers? topless women? men with Tourette's syndrome?
tree-huggers?
Melynda Huskey asks for us to remember to be as civil as
we can be in our exchanges -- which I am certainly happy to do. Remember, my
use of "jerk" was applied to the hypothetical racist, the one that some folks
on this list like to assume resides a millimeter beneath my argument. So
please remember that civility includes refusing to rush to the facile equation
(for progressives) of theological conservatism with hate speech, racism, and
so on.
Cordially,
Douglas Wilson
Back to TOC