From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:07:16 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <53003@dime.cs.umass.edu>, victor yodaiken writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.145111.3924@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (St
>>  Sorry, I guess it was all that text about racist discrimination that
>>Libertarians supposedly engage in which mislead me.
>>:\

>The text was quite clear. To restate.
>         1. All economic programs are based on ethical/political assumptions
>            and unverified economic "laws"
>         2. Advocacy of a deeply political ideology on the basis of its
>            "scientific" foundations is either disingenous or the result
>             of mistaking one's unexamined assumptions (prejudices) for
>             fact.
>         3. An excellent example of (2) can be found in the "libertarian"
>         belief that government intrusion in to markets to forbid "fraud"
>         can be justified on purely economic grounds, while government
>         intrusion into markets to forbid racial discrimination cannot.

There is no right not to be "discriminated against."  Doing so would infringe
on the freedom of association of the employer/landlord/whatever.  All free
market activity, whether buying a loaf of bread, making a hiring decision or
deciding whether or not to rent YOUR PROPERTY to someone, can only be conducted
with mutual consent.

Consider the following.  Let's say that there is a deeply religious person,
perhaps even a fundamentalist, who has a property for rent.  Let's also say
that a gay person wants to rent it.  Now, you may think that the Fundie MUST
rent to the gay (i.e. be coerced by the government), but what about the
religious freedom of the landlord?  Does forcing the landlord to rent to the
gay person constitute a denial of someone's First Amendment right of religious
freedom?  What about any other reason--reasons which may seem bigoted or silly
to us but perfectly valid to them?  Please excuse me for being a moral
relativist :-).

>         There is, of course, no scientific grounds to suppose that
>         selling colored water as apple juice is any more deserving
>         of police action than is refusing service to Native Americans.

I'm a Native American...you're not trying to speak for me, are you?

>         Thus, to argue that racial prejudice in the context of economic
>         activity is a private matter while lying about what one is selling
>         is a public matter, is to reveal  a hidden assumption (a prejudice)
>         which has no scientific basis.

I think that the main quarrel that non-libertarians have with libertarianism
is merely what are "rights" and what are "privileges."  The idea behind the
libertarian ideology is that there is a basic set of individual rights which
may not be violated, either by other individuals or by government.  In fact,
the libertarian idea of "economic freedom" is merely a by-product of what is
perceived as a "right" to earn a living without being impeded.

Of course, many people don't find the libertarian model as correct.  They are
the ones who seem to want to manufacture rights which are dubious at best.
Many Democrats talk about the "right to health care."  That assumes that the
people needing health care have a right to make me pay for it, and that they
have a right to force a doctor to treat them.  This coercive force is what
makes it unpalatable to libertarians.

In fact, libertarianism can (and should be) summed up by stating that no person
and no government can infringe on me or on my property.  Economic circumstances
are just an extension of property rights.

Libertarianism...like it or hate it, at least it consistently applies its
principles to all issues, unlike the current crop of politicians.

Tim Irvin  j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com