From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:03:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.100401.11513@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.162816.20435@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>}In article <1992Dec18.110831.18508@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>}>In article <1992Dec17.175350.24565@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>}>}	As for the woman's concerns being trivial, I hope thats not the
>}>}reason, especially since the platform does tend to take an antogonistic
>}>}position on lots of woman's issues.  
>}>
>}>Like what?
>}>
>}>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>}>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>}>
>}	Well to name a few off the of my head:

Before we get into the specifics, what I was trying to say is that these
issues are very compatable with libertarianism (the fact you agreed with
over half of them off the bat proves that).  This would make the
libertarians more friendly to feminist convern than ony party other than
the socialist, consumer... if libs. included them in the platform and
publicized their support.  The issue was more of why don't they do this.

>}1)  Woman in combat.
>
>Don't know 'bout you, but I've been in combat with women.  You must mean in
>combat positions in the military.  I'm a strict meritocratist for the
>military, although I believe that we shouldn't have standing armies.  If
>a woman can do the job best, then she should get it.  However, this would
>rule out many women who aren't as good at, e.g., hand-to-hand combat as
>many men are.
>

I think most libertarians would agree with this stand.  Why not publically
back it?

>}2)  Woman and the draft, the platform does oppose the draft; but it should
>}say "repeal the draft, that failling have woman participate fully".
>
>This would tend to deter military conscription :-).
>
>}3)  All laws currently protected the sick apply to the pregnant.
>
>What law protecting the sick should be applied to the pregnant?  Why should
>disease and pregancy be treated equally?
>

Basically from a functional standpoint, both people have a temporary
reduced capacity that will end resonably soon.  The a better question is
why shouldn't they be treated equally?

>}4)  Sexual harrasment, being defined as an innitiation of force, would be
>}compatable with libertarianism.
>
>Would be, or wouldn't?  If I threaten to harm a woman unless she has sex
>with me, that's sexual assault.  We already have laws against it.  If I
>tell a woman I'll make her vice president of the company if she has sex
>with me, where's the initiation of force?  If I tell her I'll fire her unless
>she does, then I'm guilty of breach of contract unless this was one of the
>contract terms she gave her informed consent to.
>

Fair enough, but lets look at a more common scenerio; harrasment by
coworkers.  An employee is being harrased by the people working with her. 
If this were too men fighting, both would be legally covered.  But with a
woman....

>}5)  Strong penalties for rape.  The Republicans (believe it or not) are the
>}only ones who have gotten behind this.
>
>Fine with me.  However, some places had higher rape penalties than for
>murder, which encourages rapists to murder their victims afterwards.  A
>sense of proportion must be maintained.
>

Your comment about murder / rape laws is somewhat true, and is happening a
lot especially with regard to armed robbary.  However a murder is much
more likely to get caught (the police throw a lot more resources into
catching a murderer).  So I don't think this is too much of a problem.  
	But in case this is a perfect example of good place for the
platform to take strong stand (like the rep. platforms of mamy states) and
argue that rape be returned to a capital crime.

>}6)  Unequal laws with regard to dress codes on public property (the whole
>}topless NY. debate).
>
>Fine with me, too.
>
>}7)  The ERA.
>
>I guess.  Don't know too much about it.
>
>}9)  Have UN sanctions regarding violations of human rights abroad apply to
>}crimes against woman (for example female circumcision).
>
>Good idea.
>
>}10)  Have all civil rights legislation apply to woman until repealed.
>
>What civil rights legislation doesn't apply to women?  And why should we
>support extending any legislation that should be repealed?
>

Most civil rights legislation doesn't apply to woman.  In many capacities
where it is illegal to descriminate against blacks it is perfectly legal
to descriminate against woman.  For example having a disproportionaltly
low percentage of blacks working for a company is considered evidence of
discrimination; while the same is not true for woman.

>}11)  Ban state agencies from regulating abortion.
>
>Sure.
>
>}12)  Consider birth control with all other devices for purposes fo insurance.
>
>Why should the government be in the insurance business?
>

I'm not saying they should be, just that birth control shouldn't be
treated any different from any other medicine a person has to take.

>}13)  Ban premarital agreements.  Sounds much less libertarian than it is,
>}just define marriage more traditionally as a total joining of two people. 
>}then you can't sign any contract with regard to your spouse any more than
>}you could with regard to your left leg.
>
>I disagree with this legal fiction.  Marriage should be privatized into a
>contract between the two parties.
>

In the above policy there aren't two parties once the marriage takes
place.  It's just a much stronger definition of marriage, the traditional one.

>}14)  end no force divorce.
>What is this?

A typo, I meant, "no fault divorce".

>}	I could probably think of others, but you get the drift.
>
>
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

--JMB