From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss,soc.bi
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Date: 26 Sep 92 02:03:47 GMT
Organization: insert anything here

mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>> 	Right.  But of course that's assuming the free market is
>> disposed to be rational.  Which it isn't.  Exampe to follow.

>  And the government is? Puleese. At least with the free market, self
>interest is involved. Sorry if I have more trust in peoples self interest
>drive than their altruistic drive...

	Did I claim the gov't was rational (double checks) --- nope I
didn't you misread it.  Well, no surprise there...  Let's move
onto the other Thomasarian "gems" shall we?  There's bound to
be plenty...

>> >I know of no libertarians who make such a claim.  Libertarians will claim
>> >that a market imposes costs on discrimination... for example, a bus company
>> >that forces blacks to sit on the back of the bus will lose ridership
>> >unless the government requires all bus companies to do likewise.

>> 	Ah!  And now the example.
>> 	Query:  Where do all the people who opt not to ride the
>> bus go?  What if the bus is their only mode of available xportation?
>> What if all the bus companies have the same policy?  (This was
>> of course common in the 1950's and before, so there is *ample*
>> "real life" examples to back this up.)

>  Which of course were backed up by Jim Crow laws, but why let
>such a coincidental fact get in the way... This is yet another 
>appeal to the natural monopoly fallacy. In fact, even with 
>Jim Crow laws there were still lots of ways to get from point
>A to point B. Try a car. Or a horse. Or your feet. Or moving
>to the north where segregation wasn't as bad.

	If you could afford a car.  Most couldn't - otherwise they would have.
	If you worked within walking distance.  Most couldn't (the jobs
were in areas where the housing was out of range of hte people who commuted
via bus) - otherwise they would have.
	A horse requires as much upkeep as a kid - we're talking people
who are already economically challenged.
	Moving?  Oh, THERE'S a great option...  are you going to suggest
that to the GBLO*-folk in Oregon and COlorado after November?  How
about in the US if Robertson or Buchanan ever takes the presidency?
(Oh I forgot - you find equal rights laws unnecessary...)

	Mike the best thing about you is that you lend a lot of
credibility as to why "duh!" should be a word in the dictionary.

>  You must be confusing an authoritarian government which precludes,
>by law, people from starting up their own alternatives. Definitely
>not libertarian. 

	No, I'm saying that not preventing alternatives does not
make them spring up overnight.  I know this goes over your head.

>> 	The libertarian response is "oh well... guess they'll
>> have to do something else...", and the concept of "equality"
>> has just gone out the window.  In a "perfect" world full of choices,
>> people can go and do something else, start their own bus company,
>> find another job, etc.  But in the irrational, imperfect world
>> all that says is, "if you have power, you can make people do what
>> you want... if you aren't in power, you pretty much have to go along
>> with what other people want."  The libertarian credo.

>  Why, oh why, do people hold onto this starry eyed (tm) belief
>that if individuals can be reprehensible (which they can) that
>a goverment comprised of the same individuals will be any better
>when given a free hand?

	That's a different topic.  We need to of course elect people
of good character.  For example, not what we have now.

>> >Of course, and this is rather unpleasant to contemplate, the market also
>> >rewards discrimination if most people favor that discrimination.  On
>> >the other hand, in that rather nasty scenario, government actions are
>> >not likely to favor the dumped-on group either.

>> 	This is also a mind-boggling statement.  By elminating
>> discrimination, people are allowed to reach their potential, to
>> give themselves more choices.  Once that is achieved, then 
>> and only then are people able to have the liberty they want (free clue:
>> libertarianism comes from the word "liberty".  Right now, to claim
>> that this "equality" already exists is fallacious.

>  What you are missing is that in a society which openly discriminates
>against a particular group, what makes you think that a group of
>*politicians* are going to have the fortitude to stop it. Politicians?
>As in elected worms? Moral cowards of n'th degree? 
>  They are the most likely ones to be riding shotgun in the lynch mob.
>History does not favor your viewpoint.

	So we should all give up anyway... and let those in power
take over completely while at the same time "tell" us that
"well, we really do have all the things we need we jast have to
make them happen."

>> I've talked to libertarians...  I've heard the wildest things.
>  Oh dear. Those men are talking in your head again?

	Oh dear.  Run out of "logical" arguments?  Again?  Boy
you have low mileage - seems you can't even get thru a whole posting
without having to drop out of the topic...

>> "Well, we're for equal rights for gays."
>> "But what about anti-discrimination?"
>> "Well, that would be a private matter."
>> "But what about the tacit widespread public homophobia?  Certainly
>> people being assaulted on the street is not a private matter!"
>> "Well, if most people don't like gays then that has to be respected.
>> The government shouldn't get involved."
>> "But these people aren't doing anything wrong!"
>> "Yeah, but if they dind't act gay in the open, no one would know...
>> It's a private thing."

>  People being assaulted in the street is not a private matter. 
>Period. This is about the silliest strawman argument I've come
>across in a long time. And where on *earth* do you come up with
>this 'back to the closet' nonsense? 

	Gee from libertarians running for office of course...
Assaulted at the time included things like harassment, etc.
The dialogue is not verbatim.

>> 	Libertarianism *is* anti-equality.  Politics at a 4-year-old
>> level.

>  Egalitarianism != Political Equality. Apparently you are still a
>political toddler if can't fathom the difference.

	Gee I dunno... seems I get farther than you do...
But that's OK Mikey, at this point, I only respond to your postings
out of sport...  It' sort of like a crossword puzzle:  How many
President's wvies' faces can you spot in this mural of the NYC skyline?
How many logical flaws can you find per kilobyte in a Mike Thomas
posting?  We start something like a bowling league...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.discrimination,soc.motss