Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment

[Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>]

On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, David Honig wrote:  ...

> If one ever questions this in public, as Tim did, the liberal response
> is to show that unPC 'discrimination' is possible if humans are free,
> and then the dutiful citizen gladly sacrifices employers' liberty for
> their warm and fuzzy feelings.  The first amendment is about what
> government can't do to you, not what your  neighbor can or can't do. 

Yeah.  The real question is what humans are free to do.  The freedom
to do something is also the freedom *not* to do something.  The freedom
to conduct a transaction (employing someone) must also be the freedom
not to conduct that transaction because the transaction is voluntary.

Making laws against people's decision making ability (i don't want to
associate with you because of "xyz") is making laws against people's
thought processes -- essentially mindcrime.  If you're doing something
to someone against their will it doesn't matter how you came to
that decision.  Its force.  Employment descrimination is not force,
it's abcense of force.

No force, no fraud, no crime.

Freedom of association cannot exist without the freedom to not associate.

I make no assumptions about some peoples strange reasons not to 
associate.  I advocate water sharing for everyone.  Hail Eris!

(btw: government cannot descriminate on the basis of sex, race,
religion etc because they have already used force to relieve
citizen units of their hard earned cashed regardless.  but making
moral decisions about what to do after force has been committed
is more about making amends than justice)

jim