Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and racism
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:00:25 EST
 <visser.702697009@convex.convex.com> <1992Apr8.170817.6444@gordian.com> <visser.702773655@convex.convex.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <visser.702773655@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>... 
> 	Tell me which amendment or section of the constition concerns 
> itself with the "freedom" to refuse to hire people based on race or
> the "freedom" to refuse service to people because they happen to 
> be of a relgion you dont care for.  There is no right to discriminate
> against people because of things like race. 
> 

	There isn't one, which is one of the reasons you won't find
Libertarians advocating it.

> +>   By your argument, if the 1st amendment were overturned, it would hardly
> +>matter what a particular person thinks about free speech because you are
> +>re-enabling and legitimizing that behavior [of bigoted and hateful speech].
> 
> 	I am not talking about the first amendment.  It obviously suits you
> to do so because then your not in the position of having to defend the
> racism that will be caused by the policies you support.

	???  If I make guns am I responsible for the murders done with them?

> 
> 	If someone were to propose overturning the first amendment, I would
> say that the person is against free speach.  Similarly if there are persons
> who wish to tear up laws that attempt to stop employment discrimintion,  then
> the person calling for such a change is implicitly condoning the behavior.
> 

	Invalid logic.  Simply stating "I don't believe in a law against X"
does not equate to "I think X is good."

> 
> 	Refusing to serve people based on race, refusing to allow people to
> buy houses because of their race or religion is what I was and am talking
> about.  Racism is not free speach or a right of any sort.
> 

	No kidding.  What Libertarians are talking about is that government
does not have a right to legislate morality, intelligence, kindness, etc.  It
exists to protect rights.  There's more to government, of course, but that is
the gist of the Libertarian argument vis-a-vis civil rights.

> 
> +>   Your package deal of if we allow people choice, they will necessarily
> +>behave badly is not very compelling. On the other hand, allowing government
> +>"choice" does seem to have a pretty good track record of institutionalizing
> +>mass slaugther -- all in the name of the "public good". 
> 
> 	Of course.  I am sure you can find all sorts of people to tell you
> about the "evils" caused by various government efforts at anti-discrimination
> laws.   I dont have any idea how you can take laws that mandate people have
> a right not to be discriminated against because of race or sex and turn that
> into something relivant to "mass government slaughter".  Who are these laws
> hurting? or "slaughtering" for that matter.

	No one, but are they in government's domain?  If so, then it is equally
valid for government to legislate the *other way*, and say that segragation is
necessary and legal.

Brett
===============================================================================
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                            CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
===============================================================================