----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:19
PM
Subject: 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