From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:54:36 GMT

In article <2532@nlsun1.oracle.nl> jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) writes:

>I need some clarification of T. Archer's position and of the Libertarian
>position on anti-discrimination laws.

>Aren't such laws society's way of saying that this type of behavior
>is something up with which it will not put? 

     Society does not equal the government and government does not equal
society.  "Society" does not change things through laws, it changes them
through social pressure.  The *government* passes laws, and not necessarily
based on either "society's" or the majority's attitudes.

     Society enforces its attitude through social pressure, while the 
government does through physical force.  (This is why there are armed police
to enforce goverment dictates.)

     Do not confuse society with the government.  The government has certain,
specific limitations beyond which it may not go.  Much of what "society"
wants the government to do is beyond those limits.

>The so-called
>representatives of society decide that, to the best of their 
>knowledge, most members of the society do not condone this
>behavior and therefore provide sanctions to discourage it?

     Government, in the Libertarian view, is there to protect the rights
of its citizens, not enforce the views of the society.  That is one of
the primary differences between our Republic and Democracy.  In our Republic,
there are certain things that are off limits regardless of the current
majority opinion.  In a Democracy, the minority, which holds a view Society
finds objectionable, may be forcibly "converted" (made to act in a way 
Society finds more appropriate) by government power, because it is the
will of the majority.

>Of course, discrimination exists, otherwise their would be no `
>need for sanctions. 

     Such discrimination cannot exist without, at least, some societal
approval.  Discrimination does not operate in a vacuum.  

>Without sanctions the discrimination will
>continue. 

     There are currently sanctions against discrimination.  Discrimination
continues.  Societal problems can't be solved by force, because they are
rooted in the beliefs of the citizens.  Forcing change through government
power doesn't work.  At the absolute best you discourage overt 
discrimination, in favor of a more insidious kind, and no change occurs.  
The situation *must* be out in the open for change to occur.

>How else is the society to be kept within a resonable
>range of behavors. 

     In the Libertarian view, society has no business determining "reasonable
behaviours" where such behaviors do not violate the rights of others.  Since
you have no "right" to force me to associate with you, then you rights are
not violated when I refuse to associate with you.  (Not meaning to imply I 
wouldn't associate with you...)
 
     This does not mean Libertarians support discrimination.  I do not 
tolerate discrimination on many factors in my presence.  However, I oppose 
the government telling others who they must associate with in any setting.
 
     Most importantly, I oppose government intervention in such an area
primarily becuase it simply won't do any good, and add to government power
for no good reason.  The problem is deeply rooted in society, and that can't
be changed by laws, no matter how many you pass.

>Leave it to mom and dad to teach the kids
>that bigotry is wrong and you will go to hell if you practice
>it--or, you'll pay an earthly price if you practice it. 

>One which
>society sees fit for you to pay.

     This *requires* that society's attitudes be written into law.  You are
promoting penalties for an attitude you find reprehensible.  This is 
*exactly* what many people advocate in sodomy laws and other similar laws.
Is your opinion of "acceptable behavior" inherently better?  Are you 
prepared to accept government dictates as to what "acceptable" behavior is.  
Do you, then, claim, that the U.S. government is always quick and responsive 
to the will of the people?

>How do T. Archer and the librtarians propose that society discourage
>behavior that it sees as wrong and/or hurtful to the minority members?

     Through the only method which produces any real and lasting change:
Social pressure.

>Jason Durbin
>Technology Division
>Oracle Europe

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism