Good question

Post #110,913 by Silverlock 7/22/03 1:53:08 PM Reply	Good question A different topic though. And it's not a distinction I make. Allow me to explain. In this case the very real concern of flight attendants over hijacking color their reactions. Even if "Suspected Terrorist" was a recognized slogan of a political protest group, it would still be problematic on an airplane. As for a business refusing service to a customer (not quite the same as the Dixie Chicks example you brought up earlier), within certain legal constraints, they can do it at will. The business might get picketed or otherwise protested and lose sales. If the reason for the denial of service is because of political speech, they can still refuse the service. And I can protest that refusal. They are within their legal rights to refuse service as I am within mine to convince others to stop patronizing that business. why should a company be able to decide to do business with somebody based on their non-political speech, but not be allowed to make the same decision over political speech? As I said, good question. Not my position, but a good question. It's not about being "allowed" to refuse service or not. It's about accepting the fallout from that decision. I can disagree with it, I won't say they aren't allowed to make it. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #110,971 by drewk 7/22/03 6:57:48 PM Reply	Good question, but the wrong one IMO They are within their legal rights to refuse service as I am within mine to convince others to stop patronizing that business. In general I agree with this. That is why I support the rights of businesses to discriminate based on color. And the rights of informed citizens to picket and/or boycott the business. The question is, in the case of airlines are there common carrier laws that prohibit airlines in particular from doing so? It wouldn't surprise me if various Supreme Court decisions have instead established this as precedent in the absence of legislation. If the latter is the case, this raises the constitutional issue of whether freedom of speech issues outweigh whatever protections are afforded by common carrier findings. All I can [link\|http://www.aviation-law-lawyers.com/pgs/commercial.html\|find] about the definition of/requirements for common carriers is: Under federal law, beyond the specific and technical standards required for aircraft fitness, pilot licensing, etc., a common carrier owes the highest degree of care for the safety of its passengers, reasonably consistent with the practical operation of the airline's business. According to that link the definition is in Chapter 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 121 and 135, but I can't find the text of those regs online. Could one of our pilots help out? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #110,973 by Ashton 7/22/03 7:03:58 PM Reply	Ept-LRPD: "Safety is our first concern! Actually, meat is our first concern, safety is second." Coffee? Tea? or Me?? -Why.. it's Traditional . .
Post #110,975 by broomberg 7/22/03 7:27:47 PM Reply	Couldn't let this go by In general I agree with this. That is why I support the rights of businesses to discriminate based on color.* And the rights of informed citizens to picket and/or boycott the business* Please explain.
Post #110,976 by Another Scott 7/22/03 7:33:55 PM Reply	See, e.g., 87073. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=87073\|87073] gives some of his views on this. And I think he discussed this during the ezIWeThey days too. There's more there than a cursory glance might lead you to believe. It's well reasoned too, though I don't know if I agree with all of it. Cheers, Scott.
Post #110,985 by drewk 7/22/03 8:07:01 PM Reply	Thanks for finding the link The does pretty much sum it up. But to sum up the summation ... Either I am allowed to own private property or not. If society is allowed to dictate (through law) the rules for use of my property we suffer tyranny of the majority. In Birmingham, Alabama in 1950, society, through law, would have prohibited me from serving black and white customers at the same lunch counter. Sometimes society is wrong. Our defense against this is -- or rather should be -- that each citizen can make his own rules for his own property/business,[1] as long as those rules don't directly harm another, or deny them their rights. And citizens are then free to patronize this business or not, and to organize protests againtst these rules. As this applies to airlines, if they are privately owned[2] they should be free to set their own rules, and citizens should be free to protest those rules. All that said, I think the interesting question is whether there is legislation or precedent spelling out the responsibilites of "common carriers". If there are guidelines that common carriers must serve all comers who pay the advertised price without discrimination, and if these guidelines are based on protecting constitutionally guaranteed rights, then as I said freedom of speech would be weighed against those rights. [1] Business is just a type of property. My position is not based on the concept of incorporation -- which I believe has been stretched far beyond its intent -- but on property rights. [2] In this context I include publicly traded companies. "Private" simply means "not government owned/taxpayer funded". === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #110,986 by Ashton 7/22/03 8:16:39 PM Reply	So then.. what about Government Subsidized biznesses? When Chrysler held out its cap a couple times (and yes - Surprisingly! - actually paid it back with interest). What about Government subsidies of farm(er)s, tobacco-planters (!) and a list of thousands: While they are being funded by US/"us" - should other standards apply? And if not, why not? I think.. you're just polishing a tar baby - in seeking to relate 'property rights' to All of Life - that's a CPA- Econ-think kinda project IMO. It's also the template for most PNAC / Neoconman deconstructions of honesty, decency and other words with inescapable connotations across all scales. (I dunno if you can shellac a tar baby -?-) Ashton Bring mob rule back home. Rehire the Vigilantes - at least you know who's under the sheet you're shooting at!
Post #110,991 by drewk 7/22/03 8:29:35 PM Reply	Good point If the business accepts a government subsidy then they should follow the same standards as the government. So if the government doesn't allow discrimination then neither should anyone accepting their money. And this does indeed include all (most? I'm pretty sure it's all) of the major airlines. But you clearly have a problem with my main point, that private businesses should be allowed to exercize property rights. You seem to make the distinction that personal freedoms are somehow distinct from property rights. Please explain how? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #110,995 by broomberg 7/22/03 8:37:16 PM Reply	Private water company No government. No subsidies. Decides to stop selling water to blacks. Their homes become worthless. This is an extreme of the economic manipulation possible based on your viewpoint.
Post #110,999 by drewk 7/22/03 8:59:28 PM Reply	Two answers First is that enough people would have a problem with this that it couldn't last. Even apartheid came down eventually. I refuse to believe enough of the population would condone such behavior for it to go on indefinitely. Second is that I allow for the possibility that some services should be publicly held. Is that privately held water company a hypothetical or does such a thing exist? How do/would they guarantee rights of way across property they don't own? How could anything we currently view as a utility (power, water, phone) exist without government enforcement of their rights of way? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #111,006 by broomberg 7/22/03 9:27:04 PM Reply	Why? Enough people? Nah. I'd say there are huge swaths of the population who would love it. Don't forget the American dream. A million blacks swimming back to Africa with a Jew under each arm. Right of way? Purchased, done deal, no issue. Fully paid off all the required pieces of the governent. Isolated development, of which they are the only source of water. No wells. Hell, they can even own the damn road in my example. Such things have happened in "company towns". The only thing they don't own are 1/2 the houses in the development, owned by the blacks, who they decide not to sell water to any more. Yes or No: Do you support their "right" to do that?
Post #111,021 by boxley 7/22/03 11:00:59 PM Reply	Hey you can swim last time I checked if the armpit smell bothers you :-) You are liable to be sued civilly if denied equal protection, a governmental entity cannot criminalise failure to desegragate. Governments MUST treat all equal or face federal criminal penalties. thanx, bill questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #111,089 by drewk 7/23/03 8:24:08 AM Reply	How can "company towns" exist? The only reasons companies are able to grow so large is the protection afforded by incormporation, a legal fiction enforced by law. We, through our elected representatives, have decided to allow this fiction. Then we try, through these same representatives, to pile layer upon layer of regulation upon these companies to restrict how they may act. Wouldn't it be simpler to rethink the whole concept of incorporation? Had Union Carbide officers been held personally liable for the Bhopal disaster, it is likely the next set of executives would have exercized more care. Instead we pass on to coporate officers all the benefits and rights, without any of the liabilities. So in one sense I agree with you. If we were to eliminate restrictions on what corporations can do without introducing personal accountability, it could be as bad as you suggest. But IMO we are using one bad idea to try to solve the problems created by another one. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #111,018 by Another Scott 7/22/03 10:43:49 PM Reply	Veolia (nee Vivendi) and Suez are 2 of the biggest. This week's Economist has a survey on water - [link\|http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1906846\|Priceless]. They argue that governments often do a very poor job in water. Cheers, Scott.
Post #111,037 by Ashton 7/22/03 11:48:45 PM Reply	Re: Veolia (nee Vivendi) and Suez are 2 of the biggest. Yessss.. I recall a few months back, a most intelligent exploration of that very issue - I think.. by a woman assoc. with the Grameen Bank. Delhi scholastic accent. Overall though, this particularly al punte NPR broadcast was about a conference, during which several fine speakers gave concise rebuttals to the current Corporatization Plan for {those helpless folks in} the Third World. A few rose to subtle-Tom-Lehrer heights. Missed any web ref, even while listening for such :( IIRC one biggie was the stark recitation of ENRON's India power-$$ grab via 'funding' [but not really] that power plant, while also indenturing most in the region for.. a couple generations of grossly overpriced 'power'. Ah the biz-power to disempower folks through massive dissembling. But then, near-at-home: we have Longhorn, so - The rest of the world doesn't have to become much.. smarter to - tangle assholes effectively with the Neoconman mindset: only, they need then to become REPORTED. Which brings us back to OUR problem in the Homeland, now pretty Secure against many such factual incursions. Ashton
Post #110,993 by broomberg 7/22/03 8:34:05 PM Reply	Medical? Does that fall under "your do no harm?" What about a pharmacy selling medication? What about a food store? If the white only food store has prices 20% less than the black serving one next door, it that harmful? What about if the nearest black serving food store is 20 miles away? What if the area that that has the most jobs only has food stores that serve whites only? Blacks couln't work there because they couldn't eat. I say the "cause no harm" could be twisted any way you want.
Post #110,998 by drewk 7/22/03 8:53:56 PM Reply	Turn it around Remember my example, pre-1960's Birmingham, Alabama. The law prohibited serving blacks and whites at the same lunch counter. Would a proprieter have been "wrong" to violate the local law? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #111,004 by broomberg 7/22/03 9:20:07 PM Reply	I'm merely exploring your "harm" limitation You conveniently ignored that and threw up the Birmingham straw man.
Post #111,086 by drewk 7/23/03 8:02:54 AM Reply	Not allowed to buy my product != harm If I own a product, and I don't want to sell it to you, why should I have to? If I provide a service and I don't want to provide it to you, why should I have to? And why is Birmingham a straw man? That was specifically to refute the point that community consensus should be allowed to dictate how I run my own business. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #111,087 by broomberg 7/23/03 8:09:13 AM Reply	Untrue - Answer Y/N on water company above And your Birmingham is a straw man. An example of one bad law does not invalidate all.
Post #111,007 by Silverlock 7/22/03 9:38:29 PM Reply	I'm not a pilot But I'm a damn good researcher. Try [link\|http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=923667454418+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve\|here] and [link\|http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=92354941756+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve\|here] ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #111,085 by drewk 7/23/03 7:58:50 AM Reply	Cool, but ... The links apparently only work from within a session, because I'm getting nothing with them. What search terms did you use on that site to find them? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #111,092 by Silverlock 7/23/03 8:59:11 AM Reply	Here ya go "Chapter 14" AND "Section 121" "Chapter 14" AND "Section 135" Exactly as written above. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?

Welcome to IWETHEY!