From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:32:30 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep8.154925.3968@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <53003@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep4.145111.3924@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>	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"
>
>	and/or; and implies that such assumptions always have to be made.
>
>	I can observe market activity for a time, devise an economic theory to
>describe it, and then try to implement it without resorting to
>ethical/political assumptions.  (I need only to simply ignore such matters, to
>take the easiest way out.)

"Program" implies objectives. The objectives you chose must be based on your
goals. If you would explain how you chose goals without making some
ethical or political judgements,  it would certainly be intriguing. 
And, even observation requires choices as every scientist knows.

>>          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, 
>
>	It would do you a world of good if such a beastie existed.  However,
>Libertarian stances against fraud have to do with individual rights, and not
>economics.

One of the interesting features of arguing with libertarians is that the
ground keeps shifting. If you recall, this thread started when someone
argued that the libertarian program allows one to remove morality from
the scope of government, since morals should be purely a private matter.

>>	while government
>>          intrusion into markets to forbid racial discrimination cannot.
>
>	Libertarians use the same yardstick.  Government should not punish
>people for being stupid, unless/until their actions infringe upon the rights of
>another.

And who defines the "rights"?

>	There is no right that keeps one from hearing racial slurs or seeing
>"No Purples" signs in stores.  Just as there is no right that keeps one from
>losing all their money in the options market.

And no "right" to not be robbed at gunpoint, or taxed, or ... ?
Again, your list of "rights" is neither given by science or uncontroversial.

>	The Libertarian stance is that by taking back responsibility for
>actions from the government which seized them will empower the public to do
>what government has proved it can't do: enlighten bigots.  Whether by education
>or simple economic necessity.

And, again, I do not argue that the government can or should enlighten 
bigots or teach sociopaths to respect the lives of others. It can and
should, however, forbid actions by bigots or sociopaths who damage the
rights of others. And, in fact, it is very clear that government action
has changed attitudes among bigots:  the miracle of Strom Thurmond as
defender of a black nominee for supreme court justice and one married to
a white woman no-less, is directly attributable to the voting rights and
economic discrimination acts. You may not know this, but not so long
ago, black men who *looked* at white women were routinely murdered in the
south, and Strom Thurmond was a vigorous and vituperative advocate of the
necessity of forever keeping blacks in a subordinate status. Thurmond
may still hold the Sentate filibuster record from his battle against the
incredibly weak Eisenhower civil rights bill. Maybe deep in his heart, he
is still a segretationist and KKK advocate, but he does not act that
way anymore.


>	If Libertarians did what you say they do, then you would have a case. 
>But we don't.  Racial prejudice *in any context* is a victimless "crime".  When
>it interferes with other's rights, then it violates rights exclusive of the
>motivation which caused those violations.

Denial of service is not victimless. 

>
>	As the Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled, you can legislate penalties
>for trespass, fraud, assualt, battery, etc. but not for *the thoughts* that
>motivated those acts.

And who suggested otherwise? Again, I don't care whether or not landlords
are annoyed by hetrosexuality or consider people of Lithuanian extraction
to be just as good as anyone else. I do care when those prejudices are
translated into acts which deny housing or office space to citizens.
So, if you are discriminating on racial grounds, and this discrimination
has a negative economic impact its victims, you are violating their rights,
even if you have nothing but good feelings for members of that racial group.
Conversely, if you hate all Americans who are not pure blooded Serbians,
yet do business without denying economic rights on the basis of ethnicity,
then it is your perfect right to think what you want.




-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.econ:7498 talk.politics.misc:45589 talk.politics.theory:4193