jj@alice.UUCP (06/04/85)
> From allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > > > From jj: > > ... > > (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj > > You are right to make the distinction between support of policies > *because* they are rascist and support of policies *regardless of* the > fact they are rascist. Mr. Sykora's argument in support of > "employers rights" is definitely the latter. But the exact same argument Um, I don't think that's exactly the case, but it's a secondary point. The question of responsibility also affects the employer, ... > was indeed used against the whole Civil Rights Movement and in arguments > that people had every right to force blacks to stay at the back of the bus, > not to let prominent black musicians eat in the very places they were This is quite true. If you explain to someone why what he or she is doing is rascist, and you get a sophistic or rude answer, then you've garnered information that leads you to believe that the person is doing such deliberately. If you finally become convinced that the person is dealing in bad faith, you are under no compulsion to assume otherwise. *BUT* If you get a reply what says "well, the reason I started is x, and I could stop if y", then you've got grounds to work from. > performing,etc. I find support for such discrimination a tacit support for > rascism. It is yet another example which demonstrates that Libertarian ideology > or ideologues have no concern for the actual outcomes or fairness of > the policies they espouse. If rascism results, so be it according to Mr. Sykora. > I still find this view abhorrent. > Such acceptance of rascism and elitism is one of the things I find very > distasteful about certain Libertarian ideologues. > tim sevener whuxl!orb I've argued that Libertarianism is a natural reaction to the current trend away from personal responisibility. The reply that rascism would go away in a libertarian world is based on the ideal world, just like the socialist utopia is based on a different ideal world. Personally, I believe that a person should indeed have the right to discriminate, however the person should also be held responsibly for discriminating. Libertarians argue that economic results would enforce the responsibility by making the person less rich, ergo less powerful. In this way, Libertarians are anti-discrimination. It's not clear that the argument that economic pressure is an unavoidable outgrowth is is well formed. (In the ideal, yes, but personal behavior and UNenlightened self-interest can make local minima that can trap the system, so to speak.) If you disagree with the Libertarian conclusion, it is possible to enforce responsibility on those who DO discriminate without antagonizing those who would help, if they weren't forced into an adversary position. As an aside, this discussion shows the results when a question hinging on ideals becomes cluttered with personal attacks. A personal attack is unresolvable. A disagreement over goals and/or ideals can be resolved. Enough said. Mike? Are you there? -- TEDDY BEARS HAVE LIMITED PATIENCE! THEY DO EVENTUALLY GET HUNGRY! "Let us remember my cat, Geoffrey, ..." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj