At 10:09 PM 6/18/02 +0900, Nick May wrote:
>Nope. The question is - is their screening process rationally based? Were
>they to screen people on skin colour ("having a black skin" for example) I
>believe the issue of discrimination by a market dominating company WOULD
>be something we had the moral authority to oppose other than through our
>"yen vote". It is not clear that the "non permanent visa" criterion is
>any more rational or reasonable. (And I therefore withhold judgement)
But who are we to try and determine what's rational for Docomo's
business? Are the imposers (such as Debito) of a so-called
"rational screening process" going to compensate Docomo if they
end up with more than the expected uncollectible debt the
"rational screening process" is supposed to cap?
Of course not. Debito and crew will just wring their hands and
say, "Docomo's a big company, they can eat the losses".
But we all have been around long enough to know that
Docomo isn't going to eat any of those charges, they
are just going to pass them along to regular paying customers
like me and you -- so basically we are going to get soaked
with some bum's bad debt. I don't want to play that game.
Also following your logic if we find, for instance, that there are
racial groups or skin colored groups (e.g, all non-yellow skinned
customers, etc.) that have a disproportionate propensity not
to pay their bills, and we deem that this skin colored litmus test
is a "rational and/or statistically valid screening process"
would you be willing to allow that?
I don't know anyone who would rather watch a badly
stuttering, homely news anchor versus a news anchor that
can enunciate clearly and is somewhat comely. Is that
good or bad? I dunno, but it happens daily (check the ratings)
and it is clear and unabashed discrimination. No one bats
an eye at that.
Frankly, discrimination is a fact of life, not only in business but
everyday in our personal lives. If we are intellectually
honest, we all will admit we freely discriminate, and that
it's actually an innate survival tool in terms of business and personal
life. We discriminate on everything from who we date (too short,
too stupid, too ugly, wrong religion, wrong race, wrong caste,
wrong socio-economic class, wrong job, etc.) to
whom we do business with, what foods we eat, what clothes
we wear and so on. And we even hold "beauty contests'" rather
than "ugly contests".
Most of these personal discriminatory feelings could easily be
characterized as "not rational", but I don't want the government
telling me who I can or can't associate with in my personal life
or my business life.
>But the mere fact they are a "free" enterprise does not protect them in
>principal. "Free" is in fact "very constrained" in a democracy, as it damn
>well should be, given the intellectual property and contract law they get
>in exchange.
>
>All democracies function in part to protect the rights of minorities.
A true democracy, in fact, does not protect the rights of minorities,
since a majority always rules. That majority can pass any laws it sees
fit.
On the other hand, a Constitutional Republic, like in the United States,
actually offers the most protection from "tyranny of the majority".
I don't want to get too far into the economic merits of IP laws and sanctity
of contract, but suffice it to say that as far as IP laws and contract laws go,
there existence shouldn't mean that businesses or individuals are
restrained from free association or disassociation. I can't speak for Japan,
but in the US, IP law is enumerated in the US Constitution (Article I,
Section 8) and so is freedom to associate or disassociate (1st Amendment).
There is no reason they need to be mutually exclusive.
>And so, distasteful as the UDF (?) are, and disingenuous as their claim
>it is a tax is, they ultimately have a point.
They still haven't proven any point to me. And even if they can prove
that Docomo is "unfair" my response would be then take your business
elsewhere.
James Santagata
AudienceTrax
http://www.audiencetrax.com
Received on Tue Jun 18 20:45:19 2002