From: daggs@l42bb.jsc.nasa.gov (Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarian Policies and Socal Tolerance
Date: 26 Aug 1992 23:15:21 GMT
Organization: nasa-jsc

In article <1992Aug22.181315.20259@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com
(Steve Hendricks) writes:
>I detect a basic contradiction in many of the posts to this group that
>I would like to see addressed by those with a commitment to the 
>libertarian viewpoint.
>
>On the one hand, libertarians typically make a fetish of high-sounding
>assertions of tolerance toward those who live or think differently
>from the majority in a society.  I assume that a libertarian utopia 
>would be one in which many different views would exist and cultural 
>diversity would be celebrated.  So far, so good.  We conventional
>liberals share the same goals.

Well, let's not be hasty. I would have to ask you for clarification
on what you mean by the "celebration" of diversity. As best as I have 
been able to discern the American left's concept of celebration includes
redistribution of wealth from productive people to non-productive
people who choose to live in cultural isolation. One manifestation of
this isolation is the tendency of subsidized immigrants to refuse to 
learn English. Such refusal is not conducive to understanding, and
is most conducive to intolerance. If the federal government's selective
subsidization of cultural enclaves is what you mean by "celebrated"
cultural diversity, then we most certainly differ.

My concept on toleration and celebration does not admit the federal,
state or local government creating officialy recognized "groups"
of victims who are to recieve "restitution" in the form of wealth
transfers. Such officially sponsored pigeonholing only creates envy
and intolerance. What is more it is thoroughly inconsistent with the
US Constitution, which in theory guarantees "...equal protection
under the law to all persons."
>
>If that is so, however, I fail to see how typical libertarian 
>positions on education, housing, employment, and public accomodations
>support such goals.  Worse than that, they seem designed positively
>to undermine them.  Rather than promoting tolerance and cultural
>diversity, they appear designed to support group isolation, intolerance,
>and ultimately to promote "group think" rather than individualism.
>
>Take education policy as one example.  I assume that the typical 
>libertarian position is that religious, cultural, ethnic, and political
>groups should be encouraged (not just allowed) through public policy 
>to form their own schools.  Does anyone seriously believe that 
>segregating children into such group-based training academies will 
>lead to more tolerance for cultural diversity and individualist
>values?  There is certainly little evidence for such a hope and plenty
>of evidence to the contrary.

The main purpose of education is to educate (not to "create" a sense
of cultural tolerance). Even so, there is certainly more "cultural diversity"
in allowing each and every family to determine for itself 
what the acceptable standards of quality, quantity and content are to 
be than there is in creating a "collectively owned" asset (i.e. 
"public" schools) through which all people must pass. The overwhelming
record of the public schools is that they are incapable of educating,
incapable of maintaining a safe environment, unresponsive to parental
concerns and unwilling to maintain a reasonable cost structure. It has
been simple enough for the middle and upper economic strata to pay
twice or move to the suburbs, but the poor never have a CHOICE in our
current educational system.

As to the question of who promotes "group think" the American left has
been actively seeking to replace English (with all its inherent 
dialectic diversity) on our college campuses with "politically
correct" newspeak. In fact, speaking any of the forbidden words, in 
public or in private, while in attendance at American colleges and 
universities invities retribution from the institution. If you need
references to actual cases of such I can provide them. 
>
>Libertarian policies in housing, employment, and public accomodations
>would seem to lead in the same direction; toward isolation
>of like-minded groups and an inevitable reduction in experience with
>diversity and therefore less commitment to individual rights.
>
>I suppose one might argue that this is a risk that must be borne to
>promote individual choice.  But at the same time, libertarians would
>agree, I believe, that commitment to individualism and social tolerance
>are essential to a libertarian utopia.  So how do you propose that 
>that such values be promoted as libertarian policies are implemented?
>Am I missing something?
>
>Steve
>--

My sort of libertarian does not seek "utopia". My ideals are directed  toward a
society which is consistent with the US Constitution.
In such a society, all are free to associate, speak and write as they
CHOOSE and are protected from the depradations of governments that
would coerce "correct" behavior. Do you doubt that diversity is in 
human nature and that left alone, people will differ? Must some "wise"
central authority be on hand to dictate diversity?

Clark J. Daggs
1864 El Mar Ln.
Seabrook, Texas 77586