From: russo@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Thomas Russo)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:33:36 GMT
	<1992Jul21.033657.27846@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1992Jul21.052510.5743@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Jul21.194625.18019@tss.com> <l6r6tsINNdrb@dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu>
	<rdippoOrganiza
Organization: Center for Biomolecular Simulation, Department of Chemistry,
	Columbia University

In article <archer.156@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>In article <1992Jul23.150743.32350@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
>
>>For example, libertarians would allow my
>>insurance company to put a clause in my insurance contract
>>forbidding me under pain of losing my insurance to associate
>>with blacks --- i.e. the insurance companies could coerce
>>me to restrict my freedom of association.  But libertarians
>>think that government restrictions *preventing* discrimination
>>are an illegal abridgement of freedom of association.
>
>Un uh.  At that point, your insurance carrier is infringing on YOUR right to 
>free association, at the Libertarian POV is that the government IS 
>responsible for preventing individuals from infringing on each other's 
>rights.
>

Um... um... um... may I politely say "NOT"?  The insurance company is
only infringing on your rights IF representatives of said insurance
company are also holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use its
service.  If one is operating under the libertarian assumption that
people are free to decide which insurance company to patronize, and
that other people are free to form insurance companies with whatever
operating policies they choose then there is NO rights infringement.

In a true free-market situation (*), given the existence of people who
genuinely feel that their right to associate with whomever they please
is fundamental, the insurance company with the restrictive rules will
lose customers to the companies without such rules.  If a sufficient
number of people are willing to accept the terms of the insurance
policies they are paying for to make the company viable then it will
survive and its policies will continue.  If sufficient numbers of
people object to the terms, they create a market for insurance service
without these restrictions, and someone will leap to fill the void.
If on the other hand an insufficient number of people are willing to
tolerate the first company's rules then the company will either change
its rules to please its customers or they will take their business
elsewhere and the company will sink.

So it all boils down to whether you think there are enough people who
object to such rules to provide a market for companies which do not
have them.  I personally think that there would be.

NOTES:
(*) -- By "In a true free-market situation" I mean:
  1) NO government interference in the policies of insurance companies
(i.e. no attempt by government to forbid discrimination OR REQUIRE IT!)
  2) NO possibility that the offending company could block formation
of competitors via government interference (e.g. regulation,
licensing, or other tools of governments) or privately applied force
(e.g. hit men, firebombing or other tools of racketeers)
  3) NO possibility that the offending company can get away with using
force (private or governmental) to stop its customers from jumping
ship and hopping onto the competition's boat.

These are pretty strong assumptions, and I beleive fundamental to the
workability of any libertarian scenario.  If any one of them were to
be false there would exist the strong potential for serious rights
infringement, IMNSHO.

The only justification for government action in this area in the
libertarian solution (IMHO) would be to guarantee that such
assumptions remain valid.

-- 
Thomas Russo			russo@nile.chem.columbia.edu
Department of Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Simulation
Columbia Univerity
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13303 misc.headlines:4962 talk.politics.misc:35407 alt.news-media:813 alt.censorship:6158