Re: It's the usual Libertarians-vs-Statists flame war! Re:

[dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)]

"bill.stewart@pobox.com" <stewarts@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> And by the way, none of this has to do with whether governments can
> require corporations not to have their employees act rudely.
> Corporations are a fictional creature whose existence is a favor
> from the government to the owners, and they can tie whatever strings
> they want to onto the favor when they grant it.  Whether granting

That's an interesting legal theory. I recall that when RSA (the republic
of south africa, not the company) mandated racial discrimination in workplace,
various US companies doing business there refused, and RSA didn't give them
any trouble (probably because they'd rather have them violate their laws than
leave altogether). Now, suppose a corporation incorporated someplace where
it's legal to refuse to hire coloreds opens an office in the US - is it not
subject to the same laws as the corporations from one of the 50 states
because it's so foreign??

> favors to bunches of owners is a State or Federal job,
> or whether it's Nobody's job, the owners can do what they're told
> or have their favor vanish in a puff of greasy orange smoke
> and still not have a cause of action for complaining about it.
> Companies run by partnerships and the business activities of
> individuals are a separate issue, unless they're selling to the
> government, which also makes them fair game.

Hmm! There are some pretty big partnerships. I used to be employed by GS
and by C&L, both of which are partnerships. Do you mean
they could discriminate against coloreds if they wanted to? I thought it
goes by the number of employees.

---

<a href="mailto:dlv@bwalk.dm.com">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps