From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:15:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.183941.19971@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>In article <53064@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep5.030208.18854@newshost.unh.edu> pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand) writes:
>|> >vy: Victor Yodaiken
>|> >ps: Paul Sand

>|> >vy: [...] let's examine the "libertarian" position that one has the
>|> >    "right" to refuse service in a public place of business on the basis
>|> >    of racial bigotry. [...]

>|> >ps: Translation: libertarians believe that market transactions should be
>|> >    mutually voluntary.

>|> >vy: That is not a translation, it is a sugar-coating.

>|> >On the contrary, it's an accurate description of the underlying
>|> >principle.
 
>|> Hate to break this to you, but most people do not volunteer to be
>|> discriminated against any more than they volunteer to be victims of
>|> fraud. 

>Victor seems to have a real problem comprehending English.  Perhaps it's not his
>native tongue.

> Translation: libertarians believe that market transactions should be
> mutually voluntary.  Negate this situation.  A transaction doesn't occur.
> One of the parties could have wanted it to occur.

Translation: Some people have the right to order others to comply with their
wishes against their will.  That's the esence of the violation of rights, and
the basic idea behind slavery.  If I have a beautiful house, are you saying that
I have no right to tell anyone else they cannot take it from me?  If a woman
has a beautiful body, is it a violation of the rights of the men she meets for
her to refuse to have sex with them?  After all, THEY want to, but SHE doesn't,
so in that case, to hell with the owner, right?

>|> >vy: The "libertarians" argue that it is moral to impose taxes for the
>|> >    purpose of paying for a police force which will enforce the racial
>|> >    prejudices of property owners by forcibly ejecting blacks, jews, or
>|> >    whatever from hotels, restaurants, banks, or any other "privately
>|> >    owned" place of business. [...]

To "own" something means to have legitimate control of it.  If any Tom, Dick, or
Harry can waltz in and take control of one's property, can one be said to own it?
What if the government is waltzing in and controlling the property?  Do you see no
difference between a man who spends all week working for his paycheck spending it, and
a thief robbing him and spending it?  What do you think the difference is?  I
don't think you could so so blinded by your envy as to not see the difference
between justly earned property, and unjustly seized property taken from the owner
against his will.  Maybe being crazed by envy explains it. 

>|> >ps: Translation: libertarians believe that A's presence on B's property
>|> >    should be agreeable to both A and B.

>|> >vy: You may word this how you like, but it would be nice if you could
>|> >    confront the reality of the situation.

>|> >The reality being what? That, under a system of liberty, some folks will 
>|> >use that liberty in stupid and vile ways, and yet be perfectly within
>|> >their rights to do so? This is uncontested.
 
>|> Again, if A calls the cops to enforce his prejudices by violently
>|> ejecting B from his property, this will likely not be agreeable to B.
>|> To insist on viewing police enforced denial of serice on racialgrounds
>|> as "mutually agreeable" is nutty.

No silly, what police are doing is preventing one man from forcing another to
do things against his will.  Do you really think there is no difference between
a thief who tries to take what is not his and a policeman who tries to protect
the person and property of just owners?  Sure, both use force, but that is not
the central issue.  Do you think that self-defense and unilateral aggression 
are the same?

>No one claimed the denial of service was mutually agreeable.

Absolutely, slaves have a right to refuse to serve their masters.  Property 
owners have a right to refuse to submit to theft.  Woment who own their bodies
have a right to refuse to be raped.  These refusals as NOT aggression.  Do
you really think they are?  Or are you just being stubborn?

--Brian

Disclaimer:  I am NOT a Libertarian.  I don't speak for libertarians, and I
don't like the Libertarian movement.  I'm just settin' you straight.