From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:15:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.204243.2299@cbnews.cb.att.com> jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>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
>
Sentance cut off so....

>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.
>

Well, to a great extent it is both.  I addressed the sort of thing, that
we could do to make it less a matter of legistics, further down in the
original post.  But for example not having woman serve on attack
submarines is a great example of descrimination that the Libs should take
a strong stance against.

>>>}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.")
>

I don't think an employer would treat an ill employee fairly, and think in
all fairness the evidence is on my side on that one.  However, these laws
protecting sick employees do exist.  As long as they do why not extend
them to pregnant woman.

>>>}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.
>

	This a perfect example.  Woman do not like to have to be sexual
intimadated in the work place.  The same way men don't like to be
threatend.  If a man threatens another man, then this a crime.  If a woman
is harrassed at best its a civil offense.  Why not put them on parity with
one another?

>>>}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.
>

Rape is very different from most types of assault.  Assult is generally
directed against an individual, while rape is a crime directed against a
group.  Its the difference between murder and genocide.

>>>}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.
>

Yes, but you don't see the LP march with the woman in NY to get them
repealed.  Perhaps you missed the beggining of this argument, I was
agruing that Lib. philosophy is very compatable with feminism; but the
party as an antoganistic relationship with feminism it shouldn't have.

>>>}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.
>

So in other words, you would rather have these laws apply unequally, then
correct them, even if you disagree with the law?

>>>}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.
>

Many people are insured for medicines for "health" reasons but not for
Birth Control.  That's why they would want this to apply.

>>
>>>}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.  
>

Exactly!  Living togother and having sex is an agreement between two
people, marriage is an agreement between a couple and society.  In fact
the definition marriage includes that it be public.  The signing a
contract, living toghethr, and having sex doesn't need to be.

>>>}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?
>

No, no fault primarily refers to the method of splitting the estate and
assets.  Originally, someone violating their marriage vows, and it was
this person's "fault" that the divorce had happened, so they were
financailly penialized.  No fault sought to end this.

>                                  James Parker
>                                  jap@cb1focus.att.com 
-JMB


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian