Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:56:31 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <52770@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.034235.9294@newshost.unh.edu> pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand) writes:
>>vy: victor yodaiken
...
>>vy: Thus, the "libertarians" find it perfectly moral to forcibly extract
>>    taxes from minority groups in order to violently oppress them. [...]
>>
>>Untranslatable, because false. Some (maybe most, by no means all)
>>libertarians find taxation acceptable to adequately protect the rights
>>of all individuals; to claim that the actual motive is "in order to
>>violently oppress" minorities is baseless slander.
> 
> Only if one accepts willingly confuses propaganda with reality. Those
> libertarians who accept the need for taxation (e.g. in accordance with
> the platform the the Libertarian party) do so on the basis of government
> protection of "private property". If police, hired at public expense,
> are going to enforce the racial/religious bigotry property owners, then
> it follows that members of unpopular racial/religious  groups will
> be forced to pay taxes to support their own oppression. If you want to call
> this process voluntary and freedom-enhancing it only illustrates the
> shallowness of your ideas.

	From the LP platform:

 
                        1992 National Platform
                                of the
                          Libertarian Party
... 
                               PREAMBLE
 
As Libertarians, we  seek a world  of liberty; a world  in  which  all
individuals are sovereign  over their own  lives, and no one is forced
to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
 
We believe  that  respect  for  individual  rights  is  the  essential
precondition for a  free and prosperous  world, that force  and  fraud
must be banished  from human  relationships,  and  that  only  through
freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
 
Consequently, we defend  each person's right to engage in any activity
that is peaceful  and honest, and  welcome the diversity that  freedom
brings.  The world  we seek to build is one where individuals are free
to follow their  own dreams in  their own ways,  without  interference
from government or any authoritarian power.
 
In the following  pages we have  set forth our  basic  principles  and
enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.
 
These specific policies  are not  our  goal,  however.   Our  goal  is
nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is
to this end that we take these stands.
 
... 
                       STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
 
We, the members  of the Libertarian  Party, challenge the cult  of the
omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
 
We hold that  all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion
over their own  lives, and have  the right to live  in whatever manner
they choose, so  long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal
right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
 
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite
principle, that the  State has the  right to dispose of  the lives  of
individuals and the  fruits of their  labor.  Even within  the  United
States, all political  parties other than  our own grant to government
the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of
their labor without their consent.
 
We, on the  contrary, deny the  right of any government  to  do  these
things, and hold  that where governments  exist, they must not violate
the rights of  any individual:  namely,  (1)  the  right  to  life  --
accordingly we support  the prohibition of  the initiation of physical
force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action --
accordingly we oppose  all  attempts  by  government  to  abridge  the
freedom of speech  and press, as  well as government censorship in any
form; and (3)  the right to  property --  accordingly  we  oppose  all
government interference with  private property, such  as confiscation,
nationalization, and eminent  domain, and support  the prohibition  of
robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
 
Since  governments,  when  instituted,  must  not  violate  individual
rights, we oppose  all interference by  government  in  the  areas  of
voluntary and contractual  relations among individuals.  People should
not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of
others.  They should  be left free  by government  to  deal  with  one
another as free  traders; and the  resultant economic system, the only
one compatible with  the protection of  individual rights, is the free
market.
 
                 I. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
 
No conflict exists  between civil order  and individual rights.   Both
concepts  are  based  on  the  same  fundamental  principle:  that  no
individual, group, or  government may initiate force against any other
individual, group, or government.
 
 
1. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
 
Members of the  Libertarian  Party  do  not  necessarily  advocate  or
condone any of  the practices our  policies  would  make  legal.   Our
exclusion of moral  approval and disapproval  is deliberate:  people's
rights must be recognized; the wisdom of any course of peaceful action
is  a  matter  for  the  acting  individual(s)  to  decide.   Personal
responsibility is discouraged  by society routinely denying the people
the opportunity to  exercise it.  Libertarian  policies will create  a
society where people  are free  to  make  and  learn  from  their  own
decisions.
 
2. CRIME
 
The continuing high  level of violent  crime -- and  the  government's
demonstrated inability  to  deal  with  it  --  threatens  the  lives,
happiness,  and  belongings   of  Americans.   At   the   same   time,
governmental violations of  rights undermine  the  people's  sense  of
justice with regard  to crime.  The  appropriate way to suppress crime
is through consistent  and impartial enforcement  of laws that protect
individual rights.  Laws  pertaining to "victimless  crimes" should be
repealed since such laws themselves violate individual rights and also
breed other types  of crime.  We  applaud  the  trend  toward  private
protection services and  voluntary community crime control groups.  We
support institutional changes,  consistent with full  respect for  the
rights of the  accused,  that  would  permit  victims  to  direct  the
prosecution in criminal cases.
 
3. VICTIMLESS CRIMES
 
Because only actions  that  infringe  on  the  rights  of  others  can
properly be termed  crimes, we favor the repeal of all federal, state,
and local laws  creating "crimes" without  victims.  In particular, we
advocate:
 
a.   the  repeal   of  all  laws  prohibiting  the  production,  sale,
possession, or  use  of  drugs,  and  of  all  medicinal  prescription
requirements  for  the   purchase  of  vitamins,  drugs,  and  similar
substances;
 
b.  the repeal  of all laws restricting or prohibiting the use or sale
of alcohol, including  the imposition of  a minimum drinking age,  and
making bartenders or  hosts responsible for  the behavior of customers
and guests;
 
c.  the repeal  of all laws  or policies authorizing stopping  drivers
without probable cause to test for alcohol or drug use;
 
d.  the repeal  of all laws  regarding  consensual  sexual  relations,
including prostitution and  solicitation, and the  cessation of  state
oppression and harassment  of homosexual men  and women, that they, at
last, be accorded their full rights as individuals;
 
e.  the repeal  of all laws  regulating or prohibiting the possession,
use, sale, production,  or distribution of sexually explicit material,
independent  of  "socially   redeeming  value"  or   compliance   with
"community standards";
 
f.  the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting gambling;
 
g.  the repeal  of anti-racketeering statutes  such as  the  Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which punish peaceful
behavior -- including  insider trading in securities, sale of sexually
explicit  material,  and   nonviolent  anti-abortion  protests  --  by
freezing assets of  the accused and  seizing assets of the  accused or
convicted; and
 
h.  the repeal  of all laws  interfering  with  the  right  to  commit
suicide as infringements of the ultimate right of an individual to his
or her own life.
 
We demand the  use of executive pardon to free and exonerate all those
presently incarcerated or  ever convicted solely for the commission of
these "crimes."  We  condemn the wholesale  confiscation  of  property
prior to conviction by the state that all too often accompanies police
raids, searches, and prosecutions for victimless crimes.
 
Further, we recognize  that, often, the  Federal Government blackmails
states which refuse to comply with these laws by withholding funds and
we applaud those states which refuse to be so coerced.
 
4. SAFEGUARDS FOR THE CRIMINALLY ACCUSED
 
Until such time as persons are proved guilty of crimes, they should be
accorded full respect  for  their  individual  rights.   We  are  thus
opposed to reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the
criminally accused.
 
We oppose labeling  cases as "civil" strictly to avoid the due process
protections of criminal  law and we  further oppose governmental civil
and criminal pretrial seizure of property for criminal offenses.
 
We oppose police  officers using excessive  force on the disorderly or
the criminally accused,  handing out what  they  may  consider  to  be
instant punishments on the streets, preventive detention, and no-knock
laws. Instant-punishment policies  deprive the  accused  of  important
checks on government  power -- juries  and the judicial  process.   We
oppose any concept  that some individuals  are by nature  second-class
citizens who only understand instant punishment and any claim that the
police possess special  insight into recognizing  persons in  need  of
punishment.
 
We support full restitution for all loss suffered by persons arrested,
indicted, tried, imprisoned,  or otherwise injured  in the  course  of
criminal  proceedings  against  them  that  do  not  result  in  their
conviction.  When they are responsible, government police employees or
agents should be liable for this restitution.
 
We call  for  a  reform  of  the  judicial  system  allowing  criminal
defendants and civil  parties to a court action a reasonable number of
peremptory challenges to proposed judges, similar to their right under
the present system to challenge a proposed juror.
 
5. JUSTICE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
 
The  present  system  of  criminal  law  is  based  almost  solely  on
punishment with little concern for the victim.  We support restitution
for the victim  to the fullest  degree possible at the  expense of the
criminal or wrongdoer.
 
We oppose the  prosecution of individuals  for exercising their rights
of self-defense.
 
We oppose all  "no-fault" insurance laws,  which deprive the victim of
the right to  recover damages from  those responsible in the  case  of
injury.  We also  support the  right  of  the  victim  to  pardon  the
criminal or wrongdoer, barring threats to the victim for this purpose.
 We applaud the growth of private adjudication of disputes by mutually
acceptable judges.
 
We support a  change in rape  laws so that cohabitation will no longer
be a defense against a charge of rape.
... 
7. INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY
 
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights --
life, liberty, and  justly acquired property  --  against  aggression,
whether by force  or fraud.  This right inheres in the individual, who
-- with his  or her consent -- may be aided by any other individual or
group.
 
The right of  defense extends to  defense against aggressive  acts  of
government.  We favor  an immediate end  to the doctrine of "Sovereign
Immunity" which  ignores  the  primacy  of  the  individual  over  the
abstraction of the  State, and holds  that the State, contrary  to the
tradition of redress  of grievances,  may  not  be  sued  without  its
permission or held accountable for its actions under civil law.
 
... 
9. FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION
 
We defend the  rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech
and freedom of  the press and  guarantee the right of  individuals  to
dissent from government  itself.  We recognize  that full  freedom  of
expression is possible  only as part  of a  system  of  full  property
rights.  The freedom  to use one's  own voice; the freedom  to hire  a
hall; the freedom  to own a printing press, a broadcasting station, or
a transmission cable;  the freedom to wave or burn one's own flag; and
similar property-based freedoms  are precisely what constitute freedom
of communication.  At  the same time,  we recognize  that  freedom  of
communication does not extend to the use of other people's property to
promote one's ideas without the voluntary consent of the owners.
 
We oppose any  abridgment of the  freedom of speech through government
censorship, regulation or  control of communications media, including,
but not limited to, laws concerning:
 
-- Obscenity, including  "pornography", as  we  hold  this  to  be  an
abridgment of liberty  of expression despite claims that it instigates
rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women;
 
-- Reception  and  storage  equipment,  such  as  digital  audio  tape
recorders and radar  warning devices, and  the  manufacture  of  video
terminals by telephone companies;
 
-- Electronic bulletin  boards,  communications  networks,  and  other
interactive electronic media  as we hold  them to  be  the  functional
equivalent of speaking  halls and  printing  presses  in  the  age  of
electronic communications, and as such deserving of full freedom;
 
-- Electronic newspapers,  electronic "Yellow Pages",  and  other  new
information media, as these deserve full freedom.
 
-- Commercial speech or advertising.
 
We oppose speech  codes at all  schools that are primarily tax funded.
Language that is deemed offensive to certain groups is not a cause for
legal action.
 
We favor the  abolition of the Federal Communications Commission as we
would provide  for  free  market  ownership  of  airwave  frequencies,
deserving of full First Amendment protection.
 
We oppose government  ownership or subsidy  of, or  funding  for,  any
communications organization.
 
We strongly oppose  the government's burgeoning  practice of  invading
newsrooms, or the  premises of other  innocent third parties,  in  the
name of law  enforcement. We further  oppose court orders gagging news
coverage of criminal proceedings -- the right to publish and broadcast
must not be  abridged merely  for  the  convenience  of  the  judicial
system.  We deplore  any efforts to  impose  thought  control  on  the
media, either  by  the  use  of  anti-trust  laws,  or  by  any  other
government action in the name of stopping "bias."
 
Removal of all  of these  regulations  and  practices  throughout  the
communications media would  open the way  to diversity and innovation.
We shall not  be satisfied until  the First Amendment is  expanded  to
protect full, unconditional freedom of communication.
 
10. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
 
We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any
religious activities that  do not violate  the rights of  others.   In
order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and
State.  We oppose  government actions that  either aid or  attack  any
religion.  We oppose  taxation of church  property for the same reason
that we oppose all taxation.
 
We condemn the  attempts by parents  or any others -- via kidnappings,
conservatorships,  or  instruction   under  confinement  --  to  force
children to conform  to their parents' or any others' religious views.
Government  harassment  or  obstruction  of  unconventional  religious
groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end.
 
11. THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY
 
There is  no  conflict  between  property  rights  and  human  rights.
Indeed, property rights  are the rights  of  humans  with  respect  to
property, and as such, are entitled to the same respect and protection
as all other human rights.
 
Moreover, all human  rights are property  rights too.  Such rights  as
the freedom from  involuntary servitude as  well  as  the  freedom  of
speech and the  freedom of press  are based  on  self-ownership.   Our
bodies are our  property every bit  as much as is justly acquired land
or material objects.
 
We further hold  that the owners  of property have the  full right  to
control, use, dispose  of, or in  any  manner  enjoy,  their  property
without interference, until  and unless the  exercise of their control
infringes the valid rights of others.  We oppose all violations of the
right to private  property, liberty of  contract, and freedom of trade
done in the  name of  national  security.   We  also  condemn  current
government efforts to  regulate or ban the use of property in the name
of  aesthetic  values,   riskiness,  moral   standards,   cost-benefit
estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth.
 
We demand an  end to the  taxation of privately owned  real  property,
which actually makes  the State the  owner of  all  lands  and  forces
individuals to rent their homes and places of business from the State.
 We condemn attempts  to employ eminent  domain to municipalize sports
teams or to try to force them to stay in their present location.
 
Where property, including  land, has  been  taken  from  its  rightful
owners by the  government or private action in violation of individual
rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.  Specifically, we
call for the return of lands taken from Americans of Japanese ancestry
during World War II.
 
12. PROTECTION OF PRIVACY
 
The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not
to speak should  not be infringed  by the government.  The  government
should not use  electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an
individual's actions or  private property without  the consent of  the
owner  or  occupant.    Correspondence,  bank  and   other   financial
transactions  and  records,   doctors'  and  lawyers'  communications,
employment records, and  the like should  not be  open  to  review  by
government without the  consent  of  all  parties  involved  in  those
actions.
 
We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment and oppose
any government use  of search warrants  to examine or seize  materials
belonging to innocent third parties.  We also oppose police roadblocks
aimed at randomly,  and without probable  cause, testing  drivers  for
intoxication and police  practices to stop  mass transit vehicles  and
search passengers without probable cause.
 
So long as  the National Census  and all  federal,  state,  and  other
government agencies' compilations of data on an individual continue to
exist, they should  be conducted only  with the consent of the persons
from whom the data is sought.
 
We oppose all  proposed regulations of civilian research on encryption
methods. We also  oppose government classification of such research or
requirements that deciphering methods be disclosed to the government.
 
If a private  employer screens prospective  or current  employees  via
questionnaires, polygraph tests,  urine tests for  drugs, blood  tests
for AIDS, or other means, this is a condition of that employer's labor
contracts. Such screening  does not violate  the rights of  employees,
who have the  right to boycott  such employers if they choose. Private
contractual arrangements, including  labor contracts, must  be founded
on mutual consent  and agreement in  a society that upholds freedom of
association. On the other hand, we oppose any use of such screening by
government or regulations  requiring government contractors  to impose
any such screening.
 
We oppose government  regulations that require  employers  to  provide
health  insurance  coverage   for  employees,  which  often  encourage
unnecessary  intrusions  by   employers  into  the  privacy  of  their
employees.
 
We oppose the  issuance by the  government of an identity  card, to be
required for any  purpose,  such  as  employment,  voting,  or  border
crossing.
 
We further oppose  the nearly universal  requirement for  use  of  the
Social Security Number  as a personal  identification code, whether by
government  agencies  or  by  intimidation  of  private  companies  by
governments.
 
... 
18. DISCRIMINATION
 
Individual rights should  not be denied,  abridged, or enhanced at the
expense of other  people's rights, on  the basis of sex, wealth, race,
color,  creed,  age,   national  origin,  personal  habits,  political
preference, or  sexual  orientation  by  the  laws  at  any  level  of
government.  Protective labor  laws, Selective Service laws, and other
laws that violate  rights  selectively  should  be  repealed  entirely
rather than being extended to all groups.
 
Discrimination imposed by  the government has  brought  disruption  in
normal relationships of people, set neighbor against neighbor, created
gross injustices, and diminished human potential.  Anti-discrimination
enforced by the  government is the  reverse side of the coin, and will
for the same  reasons create  the  same  problems.   Consequently,  we
oppose any government  attempts to  regulate  private  discrimination,
including discrimination in  employment, housing, and  privately owned
so-called public accommodations.   The right  to  trade  includes  the
right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever.
...
   	So much for Victor's strawman.

>>vy: 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.
>>    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.
>>
>>Clearly, libertarian claims about what would happen under a free-market
>>system have zero applicibility to (for example) an era in which the
>>state enforced Jim Crow laws. Conversely, that era doesn't refute such
>>libertarian claims. If anything, it should lead one to wonder why such
>>laws were necessary: to force racists to practice racism?
> 
> In actual US history, the civil and economic rights of the newly freed
> slaves were systematically and violently stolen from them as soon as
> the Federal government removed its protection by withdrawing federal
> troops. 

  	"Removed its protection"!  You're talking about the government that
enforced the slavery to begin with!  Then the same government that looked the
other way when slavery was replaced with de-facto indentured servitude.

> If you would take the trouble to learn a little history, you
> would see that the JimCrow laws were imposed *after* non-governmental
> terrorism had deprived black Americans of their liberties. You might
> also see that racism had an economic effectiveness which far transcended
> the Jim Crow laws. For example, as late as 1954 the television networks
> cut away from the Rebublican convention as Eisenhower's nominating
> speech was about to start -- because a black man was making the speech and
> the TV networks did not want to offend southern affiliates. Note, not

	In other words, only government can undo the institutionalized racism
that it fostered?

> only were there no Jim Crow laws governing the New York City based
> networks or the federally regulated TV stations, but the Federal government
> was clearly interested in having the speech televised.  The fact is,that
> popular prejudice was a powerful economic force which had the effect of
> stripping a large sub-population of the right to enter the economy on any
> where near an equal footing. Blaming the Jim Crow laws for this is simple
> nonsense.

	Jim Crow laws are simply an example of *government abuse*.

>>If Mr. Yodaiken thinks that *any* period in the history of US racial
>>relations was marked by a legal and economic system that libertarians
>>would find worthy of defending, he should specify the time and place.
>>Otherwise, as he should know, his alleged refutation is nonsense.
> 
> Well, if "libertarians" are claiming that while their proposed policies
> would fail in any real time or place, but will succeed in some mystical
> utopian era,  we have no quarrel and I am happy to let you return to 
> your fantasies. But, if you argue that in the real-world the market
> mechanisms which you seem to revere so religiously, will have effects other
> than ones we observe in history, then I must object.

	So object, but provide some proof instead of rhetoric.

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