Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:53:11 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <52684@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
...
> 
> Translation is usually associated with some sort of meaning preservation. 
> To illustrate the point which you have so deeply misunderstood, let's
> examine the "libertarian" position that one has the "right" to refuse
> service in a public place of business on the basis of racial bigotry.
> The "libertarians" argue that it is moral to impose taxes for the
> purpose of paying for a police force which will enforce the racial
> prejudices of property owners by forcibly ejecting blacks, jews, or
> whatever from hotels, restaurants, banks, or any other "privately owned"
> place of business. 

	False premise alert!  False premise alert!

	Victor has been reading too much Chomsky.  Libertarians do not find it
"moral" or even "legal" for store owners to call the police to enforce their
moral/racial/whatever beliefs.

	In a Libertarian society, here's how such an exchange would go:

	Store owner:  No, I won't sell you anything, you're [insert bigorty
here]!

	Consumer: But you sign says you will sell X at price Y, no other
conditions are mentioned.

	Store owner: Yeah, well leave or I'll call the cops!

	Consumer: Please do, I'd like to register a complaint for fraud.

	Police arrive: What's the problem?

	Store owner: That person won't leave!

	Police: And?  Were they shoplifting?  Robbing you?  Causing a
distrubance?

	Store owner: Uh...no.  But I don't want to sell them anything.

	Police: Strange way to run a business.  But you can't call us unless
there is a crime being committed.

	Store owner: Tresspassing!  That's it!

	Police, pointing to "open" sign: That sign implies you are open to all
commers who wish to accept your offer to sell goods.  I'd suggest that you put
a "No X's allowed" if you wish to imply otherwise.

	Store owner: But that would hurt business.

	Police, leaving: Of course.

> Thus, the "libertarians" find it perfectly moral

	No "thus".  False premises lead to false conclusions.

> to forcibly extract taxes from minority groups in order to violently
> oppress them. I find this repugnant and  intellectually dishonest, but

	Good, since it will never happen in Libertarian societies, we can count
on your support, right?

> not "wrong", since it is a moral position, not a falsifiable one. On the
> other hand, the "Libertarian" claim, which has been oft repeated in this
> forum, that under a free-market system such discrimination would be
> unprofitable and would render the racist business vulnerable to competition
> *is* wrong as anyone familiar with the history of race relations in the
> United States can confirm. 

	Au contraire.  What made racism economically viable was government
support/sponsership.

> That is, we see from US history that
> discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, or whatever,
>  has been quite compatible with profitability,
> and that widespread racial or religious prejudice has
> worked to deprive certain segments of the population of a meaningful chance
> to compete on equal terms with the majority. 

	...when backed up by the government.  Which is why Libertarians want to
take that power away from the government and give it back to the people.

	The same people who marched in Selma to force the government to give up
its segragationist policies.

	Followups to talk.politics.misc

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.econ