Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:49:25 EST
 <1992Sep4.145111.3924@desire.wright.edu> <53003@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

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.)

>          2. Advocacy of a deeply political ideology on the basis of its
>             "scientific" foundations is either disingenous or the result
>              of mistaking one's unexamined assumptions (prejudices) for
>              fact.

	True enough.  Creationism, for example.

>          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.

>	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.
	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.
	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.

>          There is, of course, no scientific grounds to suppose that 
>          selling colored water as apple juice is any more deserving
>          of police action than is refusing service to Native Americans.

	Nor is their scientific grounds to argue for the existence of a god.

>          Thus, to argue that racial prejudice in the context of economic
>          activity is a private matter while lying about what one is selling
>          is a public matter, is to reveal  a hidden assumption (a prejudice)
>          which has no scientific basis.

	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.

	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.

	I've published the relevant sections of the 1992 Party Platform.  Your
comments would be welcome.  

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7455 talk.politics.theory:4151 ba.politics:5228