From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:40:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Jul31.094021.3162
 <1992Jul23.164330.800@auto-trol.com> <1992Jul30.154135.14340@wts.com> <K!W-!6=@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <K!W-!6=@engin.umich.edu>, ault@engin.umich.edu (Matthew Ault) writes:
> I'll probably regret getting into this, but...
> 
> In article <1992Jul30.154135.14340@wts.com> jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer) writes:
> 
>>Under libertarianism there will almost certainly evolve communities in which
>>certain groups (majority as well as minority) are not welcome.  There will
>>also evolve more liberal communities in which nearly everyone is welcome.
> 
> Doesn't sound like a world I'd like to live in, where communities have signs
> like "Niggers, fags and dykes keep out!" at the city limits.

	You mean like today?  How welcome do blacks feel in all-white suburbs
and rural areas?  How welcome to Koreans feel in Harlem?  How welcome does any
traveller feel where everyone else looks different?

	If people want to be stupid, Libertarians will let them be stupid.  It
helps everyone else to know who those people are so they can be avoided.  Right
now you can be racist with the government's permission, and use their
regulations as a shield: "gee, we'd like to hire you, but we already exceed our
quota for minorities".

	Libertarians will NOT gleefully erect "keep out" signs.  We will not
prevent others from doing so, but you can bet Libertarians won't live in such
areas, patronize such businesses, or contribute to such causes.  Libertarians
will work to end racism, educate people and promote tolerance.

	Today people think government will take care of it.  Right.  The same
government that brought us Jim Crowe, Segragation, Separate but equal, quotas,
....

	So it's not that Libertarians *want* things that will not be prevented,
we feel that government has no right trying to set those standards in the first
place.  The people ultimately force changes, and they shouldn't have to fight
government to accomplish those changes.

>>The greater success of the more rational communities will make them more
>>attractive, even to many of the children of the more prejudiced communities.
>>If you don't believe that, you are suggesting that
>>	THE PREJUDICED PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY CORRECT
>>
>>I dont believe that.  Do you?
>>
>>Jens
> 
> You are assuming:  a) that the "rational" communities will automatically be
> more successful, 

	Which community will have greater diversity? Larger work pools?   More
people willing to work together?

	I think the 1930's and the flight of German Jews to the US is a good
example of more tolerant societies benefitting from those who are turned out.

> b) that success of that kind is akin to moral "correctness".
> What I envision under that kind of system are communites where "the right
> kind of people" will be able to find shelter from those they consider to
> be "the wrong kind of people" and will do their best to keep them out.  Such
> a community would probably be pretty tightly knit, leading to a good deal
> of economic success.  As an aside, I recall that the slave trade was pretty
> successful.  Did that success make such practices correct?  It would by your
> standards, at least from what I see here.

	I wouldn't argue along those lines (sucess of slavery, etc.).  Rather
that free societies have always done better than closed ones.  And that given
the choice, people have always chosen free societies over closed ones.
	There are exceptions, but they don't last.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism