This is an interesting situation. By believing in the merchant's freedom to 'pick' his customers, it gives the impression of some type of product 'censorship', and therefore a lack of freedom.
Rob, I would say the merchant decides where to draw his own line. Certainly there have been times in this country where merchants decided to not do business with people because of the color of their skin. And, their other customers appreciated that fact. IMHO, that was morally wrong. OTOH, I have no problem with a merchant who feels strongly that he has a bad feeling in his gut about a certain customer. If the merchant gets a bad feeling too often, he'll simply go out of business through lack of sales. I am simply saying I see nothing wrong with a merchant making a judgement call in such a case.
And dairycreek, when you say 'Making one who sells a product responsible (and then exacting penalites) for the act of the person to whom he sells the product?' and 'Isn't that just what the anti gun forces are doing with the gun manufacturers? Doesn't seem to make sense - ever!', I respectfully disagree.
The anti-gunners want to hold these merchants / manufacturers legally and financially responsible for crimes committed with their products. I don't support such behavior or policy. For example, if a civilian is killed by a BG who survives long enough to deliver the fatal shot due to body armor, I'm not going to blame the merchant. However, I wouldn't do business with that merchant, and I would feel he is unethical if he freely and ambitiously sold body armor to known gangsters. I'm not suggesting we make merchants legally and financially responsible for the crimes of others. I am stating that sometimes merchants have a very good idea of a person's character, and if that person is a danger to the merchant and others, I appreciate that merchant making a reasonable judgement call. I value them more highly as a thinking, logical human being.
To test the other side of this coin, how do you feel about a merchant that sells body armor, ammunition and weapons to a civilian (non-felon) who first asked where the nearest bank is, whether they have much security, how much cash they usually have on hand, and where the nearest police station is located? And then he asks if he can borrow a pen and paper so he can write a 'give me the cash, or I blow you away' note? At some point of course you get into an area where it is obvious a crime is imminent, but even before that exact point, can't a merchant make a judgement call on a gut feel for a potential problem?
This is one of the few reasons I am sometimes uncomfortable with Paladin Press, for example. I would appreciate them a bit more if they didn't participate in publishing some titles that are too 'efficient' in aiding BG's. I wouldn't hold them responsible legally, but I do hold them responsible morally if their information is too clearly intended for offensive, violent attacks on innocents.
A slippery slope? Well, remember the premise of this conversation - do we feel the merchant is 'morally responsible' to check out their customers? Yes I do, at least as far as the merchant needs to feel personally comfortable. That doesn't mean I have any interest in a law to enforce that responsiblity. Each individual's concept of 'morality' is certainly a very private decision, IMHO.
Perhaps the difficulty with my position is that some will believe legal and financial responsibility must naturally follow moral responsibily. I don't see those responsibilies as necessarily following one another, and I would suggest that we would be better off as a country if we got back to recognizing that fact. Judgement is a good thing for thinking human beings.
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited March 02, 1999).]
erception and reality.