From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:42:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.160310.10843@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>What law protecting the sick should be applied to the pregnant?  Why should
>>disease and pregancy be treated equally?
>
Are you arguing this should be a matter of law?  I would argue that an
employer

In article <1992Dec19.160310.10843@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>}1)  Woman in combat.
>I think most libertarians would agree with this stand.  Why not publically
>back it?

How do you suggest doing so?  I don't know that this is a matter of intent as
much as a matter of logistics.

>>}3)  All laws currently protected the sick apply to the pregnant.
>Basically from a functional standpoint, both people have a temporary
>reduced capacity that will end resonably soon.  The a better question is
>why shouldn't they be treated equally?

I assume you are referring to employment laws.  I agree they should be treated
equally, but by eliminating government restrictions on dealing with an ill or
pregnant employee.  In most cases employers will treat their employees fairly,
giving time off, etc.; however it is unfair to hamstring an employer who may
have a need to let someone go ("The only person I can find to do your job
insists on a permanent position, and I can't afford to pay you both.  Sorry.")

>>}4)  Sexual harrasment, being defined as an innitiation of force, would be
>>}compatable with libertarianism.
>>
>(Tim Starr's reply:)
>>Would be, or wouldn't?  If I threaten to harm a woman unless she has sex
>>with me, that's sexual assault.  We already have laws against it.  If I
>>tell a woman I'll make her vice president of the company if she has sex
>>with me, where's the initiation of force?  If I tell her I'll fire her unless
>>she does, then I'm guilty of breach of contract unless this was one of the
>>contract terms she gave her informed consent to.
>>
>
>Fair enough, but lets look at a more common scenerio; harrasment by
>coworkers.  An employee is being harrased by the people working with her. 
>If this were too men fighting, both would be legally covered.  But with a
>woman....

What sort of "harassment"?  Actually, I would expect the management of the
company to get down on this sort of thing, since it's bad for business.  If
there's not force or fraud involved, though, I don't see getting the government
involved.

>>}5)  Srong penalties for rape.  The Republicans (believe it or not) are the
>>}only ones who have gotten behind this.
>[Tim'sespecials]ly with regard to armed robbary.  However a murder is much
>more likely to get caught (the police throw a lot more resources into
>catching a murderer).  So I don't think this is too much of a problem.  
>	But in case this is a perfect example of good place for the
>platform to take strong stand (like the rep. platforms of mamy states) and
>argue that rape be returned to a capital crime.

Why not treat rape like any other form of assault?  I am very nervous about
making rape a capital crime (or indeed anything a capital crime), since I
don't trust the State to make such decisions, for reasons of both incompetence
and malice.  Check out Martin Yant's book _Presumed Guilty_ for well-researched
examples.

Actually, if the US did away with victimless crime laws, rape would be treated
much more seriously.

>>}6)  Unequal laws with regard to dress codes on public property (the whole
>>}topless NY. debate).
>>
>>Fine with me, too.

I don't know of a single Libertarian, nor anything in LP platform that would
condone State imposed dress codes.

>>}7)  The ERA.

The ERA is an example of bad law.  There is far too much emphasis on "good
groups"/"bad groups" in US law, and making rules on which groups are authorized
and which are not is discriminatory.

>>}9)  Have UN sanctions regarding violations of human rights abroad apply to
>>}crimes against woman (for example female circumcision).

Not many Libertarians are comfortable with the UN.  

>>}10)  Have all civil rights legislation apply to woman until repealed.
>Most civil rights legislation doesn't apply to woman.  In many capacities
>where it is illegal to descriminate against blacks it is perfectly legal
>to descriminate against woman.  For example having a disproportionaltly
>low percentage of blacks working for a company is considered evidence of
>discrimination; while the same is not true for woman.

Libertarians are too uncomfortable with raising government authority.  Besides,
pragmatically, if it applied there would be that much larger a lobby for
continuing them.

>>}12)  Consider birth control with all other devices for purposes fo insurance.

Libertarians want to get the government out of medicine and insurance, period.
Actually, expecting an insurance company to pay for birth control is rather
foolish (except, perhaps, for abortions).  Why not purchase the birth control
directly, and avoid the added costs an insurance company might add.

>
>>}13)  Ban premarital agreements.  Sounds much less libertarian than it is,
>>}just define marriage more traditionally as a total joining of two people. 
>>}then you can't sign any contract with regard to your spouse any more than
>>}you could with regard to your left leg.
>In the above policy there aren't two parties once the marriage takes
>place.  It's just a much stronger definition of marriage, the traditional one.

Why not allow the couple to decide how their marriage will work.  If they want
to keep a measure of individuality, let them.  If they want a tighter
bond, let them.  Let the people involved decide just how "traditional" they
want to be.

As it stands now, marriage is actually an agreement with the government, not
with each other.  

>>}14)  end no [fault] divorce.

My understanding is that "no fault" divorce must be by mutual decision.  If
that's the case, why should the state prohibit it?

                                  James Parker
                                  jap@cb1focus.att.com 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian