From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:03:57 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <archer.127@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>So, you anti-liberty types don't believe that individual people are capable 
>>of acting in an enlightened manner, and must be forced to do so by a benign 
>>statist government.

>Actually, what I seem to notice is that almost every libertarian I know
>is a white heterosexual middle-to-upper class male.

Too bad, we'll have to introduce you to the party members here.  Then
there's our VP candidate, Nancy Lord, and the other presidential
candidate, Bodie (sp?), who's black.  You might look at the size of
your sample.


>Why is this, you may
>ask?  Because these people have never seen how terrible people can be
>to each other.  Since they have never experienced bias, they do not see it
>anywhere.

We know exactly how terrible bias can be, and we don't want the
government mandating and perpetuating it.



>>I am sorry, but I am not willing to accept that.

>I find it hard to believe that an american business would pay women as much
>as men if they were not afraid of a lawsuit

Why?  We do, even though it would be easy enough not to.  We've got
very impressive women working here that it would be a disaster to lose
to another company because we weren't treating them fairly.


>(even with the fear of a lawsuit, they pay them less).  I do not believe that
>all store-owners in the south would sell to afro-americans if they had any
>way to avoid it.  

Nor do I believe that all stores in LA would sell to whites and asians
if they had any way to avoid it.  That should be their choice.  Being
forced to make a deal with someone is incredible.


>The amount of hate that I see for being a gay man, in my day to day life,
>convinces me that given a choice, many many people would be biased against
>me.

Quite likely.  On the other hand, can you say there is no bias now,
and that someone who hated gays would have no recourse if he was
forced to deal with you and knew you were gay?  And do you think that
instituting affirmative action for gays would actually reduce hatred
and resentment?


>All the evidence that I have seen for libertarianism is history which has
>been rewritten to make libertarianism seem like the answer.

All the evidence is around us.  The more libertarian a society is, the
better off it is.  The more fascist, the worse it is.  You get an
initial countermovement as the fascists make things more efficient,
but over time it settles out.  Socialists have begun backing away from
that.  They've created an EC homeless population as large as ours, for
about the same reasons.


>In an ideal world, libertarianism might work (just like communism might
>work).  However, given the current situation with haves and have-nots, 
>libertarianism would give white heterosexual males the freedom to return
>to the exploitive days of the past.

In the days of the past, the government actively supported their
exploitation.


>As a philosophy, libertarianism is perfect.  However, if you think that
>the general population would behave in a rational manner, you have had your
>eyes shut to human nature for your entire life.

Communism requires perfect people.  Libertarianism realizes that
people are not perfect and attempts to minimize the damage they can
do.  Just as Communism is the best economic system with perfect
people, but capitalism is best in the real world because it harnesses
the real greed of people.

-- 
Ho! HaHa! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust! *boing* -- Daffy Duck
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13728 talk.politics.misc:36571 alt.desert-storm:1641