From: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and choice
Reply-To: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:50:54 GMT

(Lance Visser) writes:
|> (Michael Thomas) writes:
|> 
|> +> (Lance Visser) writes:
|> +>|> 	When you support overturning such laws, it hardly matters what
|> +>|> a particular person thinks about segregation or discrimination because
|> +>|> you are re-enabling and legitimizing that behavior.  The goal does not
|> +>|> matter, its the inevitable and terrible consequenses do matter.
|> 
|> +>   Tell us, does the supporting 1st amendment imply support for the goals
|> +>of every form of speech, bigoted or otherwise? Does support for the 2nd
|> +>amendment imply support for murdering people with firearms? Does support
|> +>for free speech legitimize the behavior of bigotry? 
|> 
|> 	Tell me which amendment or section of the constition concerns 
|> itself with the "freedom" to refuse to hire people based on race or
|> the "freedom" to refuse service to people because they happen to 
|> be of a relgion you dont care for.  There is no right to discriminate
|> against people because of things like race. 

   To my knowledge, there is nothing specifically enumerated in the 
constitution or amendments which prevents private individuals from
discriminating. The civil rights laws are statutory as I recall. 
   However, you seem to completely miss the point of my paraphrasing
of your initial paragraph. All I did is substituted the concept of
"Free Speech" for "Civil Rights Laws". My objection is that your
comment serves only to stiffle debate by equating the questioning of
the civil rights laws with racism. It is a smear, and Ms. Genis does
not warrant it.

|> +>   By your argument, if the 1st amendment were overturned, it would hardly
|> +>matter what a particular person thinks about free speech because you are
|> +>re-enabling and legitimizing that behavior [of bigoted and hateful speech].
|> 
|> 	I am not talking about the first amendment.  It obviously suits you
|> to do so because then your not in the position of having to defend the
|> racism that will be caused by the policies you support.
|> 
|> 	If someone were to propose overturning the first amendment, I would
|> say that the person is against free speach.  Similarly if there are persons
|> who wish to tear up laws that attempt to stop employment discrimintion,  then
|> the person calling for such a change is implicitly condoning the behavior.

   Suppose I were to propose suspending 1st amendment provisions to the 
B-CPU crowd because their vile drivel is deeply offensive, and succeeded.
You on the other hand, object that my law is wrong on the grounds that
anybodys "legitimate" free speech could similarily be aborgated. By your
logic, I would be fully justified to call you a Nazi because repealing my
law would "re-enable and legitimize that behavior. The goal does not matter, 
it's the inevitable and terrible consequenses [that] do matter".
   I only bring up the 1st amendment as an analogy because it is one
where (thankfully) most people still agree, and the principles are
similar. The principles with the civil rights laws (wrt _only_ to private
relationships) should be based on the freedom of association (and its
obvious corallary, the freedom to not associate).
   The libertarian call to end the compulsion of association is on the
exact same principle which gives rise to the call for the end of drug
prohibition, and countless other victemless crimes: the Non Coersion 
Principle. Succinctly put, if there isn't coersion involved, it's not
the governments business. The civil rights laws (again, only wrt to the
provisions which regulate private behavior) go beyond governments 
bounds since their isn't any coersion involved in being bigotted. Of
course when a bigot takes forceful action on his hatred, the full power
of government should be invoked. 
   You seem to think that it is OK for the government to regulate your 
private proclivities/irrationalities. Is it OK for the government to 
regulate drugs, prostitution, pornography, your color of dress shoes?
   A libertarian government would not even try to protect people from 
themselves. I challenge you to show me how our current system (which is
trying) is succeeding. Do not bring up government instituted and enforced
bigotry, we already agree there.
-- 


		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc