From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:46:53 PDT

In article <K!W-!6=@engin.umich.edu>, on 30 Jul 92 14:34:05 EDT,
ault@engin.umich.edu (Matthew Ault) writes:

>
>I'll probably regret getting into this, but...
>
Welcome to the fray. It's only a hobby.

>In article <1992Jul30.154135.14340@wts.com> jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer) writes:
>
>>Under libertarianism there will almost certainly evolve communities in which
>>certain groups (majority as well as minority) are not welcome.  There will
>>also evolve more liberal communities in which nearly everyone is welcome.
>
>Doesn't sound like a world I'd like to live in, where communities have signs
>like "Niggers, fags and dykes keep out!" at the city limits.
>
Aside from the fact that the above language is offensive, if the city is
privately owned, what's wrong with that? Some people might actually want
to live in a gay ghetto. People can have rational reasons for choosing
to live in communities where there are restrictions, such as adult-only
cooperatives where screaming children running loose can make life
rather miserable for elderly folks. Aren't monasteries, ashrams,
kibbutzim, etc. successful examples of communities where access to
those not measuring up to standards determined by those who establish
the communities is restricted?

>>The greater success of the more rational communities will make them more
>>attractive, even to many of the children of the more prejudiced communities.
>>If you don't believe that, you are suggesting that
>>       THE PREJUDICED PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY CORRECT
>>
>>I dont believe that.  Do you?
>>
>You are assuming:  a) that the "rational" communities will automatically be
>more successful, b) that success of that kind is akin to moral "correctness".
>What I envision under that kind of system are communites where "the right
>kind of people" will be able to find shelter from those they consider to
>be "the wrong kind of people" and will do their best to keep them out.  Such
>a community would probably be pretty tightly knit, leading to a good deal
>of economic success.                                                   etty

My expectation is that both the restricted and unrestricted types
of communities would be more successful than a community in which
undesired associations between people were coerced. However, from a
strictly economic vantage point, a community without restrictions would
have a larger pool of eligible skilled and talented people than would
be a community where the choice was restricted by non-economic factors.

>As an aside, I recall that the slave trade was pr                      etty
>successful.  Did that success make such practices correct?  It would by your
>standards, at least from what I see here.
>
It certainly wasn't successful from the vantage point of those who were
enslaved, so if the sum total of all of the economic effects were
measured, I don't think that you could call the slave trade an economic
success story. In any case, the argument against both slavery and
coerced associations is a moral one; the economic benefits are
incidental.

> matt
>
>--
>|-------------------------| Sanity is maintained only by healthy and        |
>|Matthew A. Ault          |   regular promenades around its border.         |
>|ault@caen.engin.umich.edu|     - from _The Complete Wilderness Paddler_    |
>|-------------------------|         by J.W. Davidson & J. Rugge             |
>
    ====Jack====
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism