From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and racism
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:22:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>	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.

Which amendment or section of the constiution concerns itself with the
"freedom" to pick your nose?  Better yet, where's the part which give
you the authority to force me to make economic contracts that I don't
wish to?


>There is no right to discriminate against people because of things like
>race. 

Certainly there is.  If I don't wish to deal with someone, it's
unwarranted coercion for you to force me to do so.  I probably won't
last long as a business due to loss of customers and community
pressure, but if I really want to do it I've got every right.


>	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.

Okay, why don't you just add this to your .sig, to save you the
trouble of stating it in every post?  "Everything the Libertarian
party doesn't want legislation against it wholeheartedly supports and
intend to do as soon as possible."  As soon as we liberate the
airwaves, we're going to set up stations that do nothing but transmit
obscenities 24-hours a day.  As soon as minimum wage laws are removed,
we're going to hire people to manage our businesses at a penny an
hour. 

We are not defending racism, we are defending someone's right to be
racist in their business dealings if they want to be.  This does not
give government leeway to be racist, and it does not cover the racist
doing anything to one of the people he doesn't like that he wouldn't
be able to do against anyone else (harassment, assault, and the like).


>	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.

Pshaaa, right.  And monkeys might fly out of my butt.  A limit on
government powers is not the same as a limit on personal rights.
Would it make you happy if we came out in favor of harsh laws explicitly
banning anything we disapprove of, including picking your nose in public
and Michael Jackson?


>	Refusing to serve people based on race, refusing to allow people to
>buy houses because of their race or religion is what I was and am talking
>about.  Racism is not free speach or a right of any sort.

It's even more basic than free speech.  It's the ability to interact with
another individual if you choose so.  The government itself doesn't
have the leeway to discriminate, and if it wishes to discourage
discrimination it should use education and attach strings to funding.


>+>   Your package deal of if we allow people choice, they will necessarily
>+>behave badly is not very compelling. On the other hand, allowing government
>+>"choice" does seem to have a pretty good track record of institutionalizing
>+>mass slaugther -- all in the name of the "public good". 

>	Of course.  I am sure you can find all sorts of people to tell you
>about the "evils" caused by various government efforts at anti-discrimination
>laws.   I dont have any idea how you can take laws that mandate people have
>a right not to be discriminated against because of race or sex and turn that
>into something relivant to "mass government slaughter".  Who are these laws
>hurting? or "slaughtering" for that matter.

Such a narrow thinker.  These laws are just part of a whole panapoly
of laws and powers which government has given and continues to give
itself.  If it can regulate discrimination in business transactions,
it can also require you to report all such transactions to them, so
they can make sure you aren't discriminating proportionally, and they
can give you hell because you're serving far more men than women (even
if it is a gun shop).  They can go beyond that here and in other
areas, and they will.  And the more power they get, the more likely it
becomes that they'll feel secure in doing something really nasty.
Fascists tend to have a tendency towards that.
-- 
Things will be brighter tonight.  A cop will shine a light in your face.