mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/10/85)
>/* adam@npois.UUCP / 9:08 pm Apr 7, 1985 */ > >*LIBERTARIAN: Opposed to all legal and political distinctions based on >gender or sexual orientation (although some Libertarians oppose the ERA >because of fear that it may serve as an excuse for more coercive >legislation). Favor treatment of marriage as a private contract among As long as you're on the subject, perhaps you can answer a question for a fellow Libertarian. Does the ERA contain provisions requiring private sector employers not to discriminate against women or other anti-liberty clauses? Thanks in advance, Mike Sykora
adam@npois.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (04/12/85)
>>*LIBERTARIAN: Opposed to all legal and political distinctions based on >>gender or sexual orientation (although some Libertarians oppose the ERA >>because of fear that it may serve as an excuse for more coercive >>legislation). Favor treatment of marriage as a private contract among > >As long as you're on the subject, perhaps you can answer a question >for a fellow Libertarian. Does the ERA contain provisions requiring >private sector employers not to discriminate against women or other >anti-liberty clauses? > Thanks in advance, > Mike Sykora The explicit language of the ERA contains no such provision, but US precedent gives "legislative intent" priority over the explicit language of any legislation, including constitutional ammendments. Since a majority of legislative proponents of the ERA seem to believe that the ERA, if ratified, would authorize legislation applicable to the private sector, US courts are likely to interpret it that way. Adam Reed
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/12/85)
> As long as you're on the subject, perhaps you can answer a question > for a fellow Libertarian. Does the ERA contain provisions requiring > private sector employers not to discriminate against women or other > anti-liberty clauses? > > Thanks in advance, > Mike Sykora No it doesn't -- at least not explicitly. But it's easy to find all sorts of examples of legislation that has been used to justify restrictions far beyond those that were intended by the people who wrote the legislation.
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/13/85)
> As long as you're on the subject, perhaps you can answer a question > for a fellow Libertarian. Does the ERA contain provisions requiring > private sector employers not to discriminate against women or other > anti-liberty clauses? > > Thanks in advance, > Mike Sykora What a perverse notion of liberty: the freedom to discriminate against women. With these sorts of ideas, no wonder Libertarians are such a small minority party. Mike Kelly
tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (04/16/85)
>Does the ERA contain provisions requiring >private sector employers not to discriminate against women or other >anti-liberty clauses? No, it didn't, just like most of the Constitution. But how many honest judges do you know of? If it isn't "social policy" or "in the compelling interest of society", it's whatever they happen to be excreting at the moment. You can't merely appoint the right judges. You have to go out of your way to keep them from fouling up. (Surely that's possible!) I suppose that a diminished need for judges would help keep incompetents like Boston's Zobel out. Then maybe a cleanly-worded ERA wouldn't be so dangerous. Is there a new ERA??
fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (04/17/85)
In article <132@ttrdc.UUCP> mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: >> As long as you're on the subject, perhaps you can answer a question >> for a fellow Libertarian. Does the ERA contain provisions requiring >> private sector employers not to discriminate against women or other >> anti-liberty clauses? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Mike Sykora > > >What a perverse notion of liberty: the freedom to discriminate against >women. With these sorts of ideas, no wonder Libertarians are such a >small minority party. > >Mike Kelly The freedom to discriminate against ANYBODY is part of a natural notion of liberty, not a perverse one. (So, for that matter, is the freedom to help any minority groups that you feel have been discriminated against). It seems to me that if people have the right to think their own thoughts, to own property, and to form voluntary associations, then they may not be prevented from discriminating against anyone in any manner they please. Any other notion of liberty seems inconsistent. If a company discriminates against women, I find that repulsive and will not patronize it, but it is not clear to me what "right" women (or any other victims of discrimination) can claim to coerce said company to stop. As I've said before: non-coerive action is always possible. All that has to happen to set things right is for NOW to boycott the offender. Given the economic power of women in today's economy, I suspect such tactics would be very effective. In any case, since non-coercive tcechniques are available to combat the perceived evils of discrimination, why use coercive ones? How does this philosophizing translate into the real world in which we live? Very well, thank you. Discrimination in a free market costs money (see Thomas Sowell, "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality"). It is the Free Economy that will benefit victims of discrimination the most, and not more coercive legislation. --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/19/85)
In article <6323@ucbvax.ARPA> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: > The freedom to discriminate against ANYBODY is part of a natural notion > of liberty, not a perverse one. "Natural notion of liberty", huh? What makes it a natural notion of liberty? That it fits in with your wishful thinking? Hey, I have a natural notion of liberty which includes the liberty to make war (and otherwise coerce my neighbors.) Why shouldn't I? > Discrimination in a free market costs money (see Thomas > Sowell, "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality"). On the contrary. Discrimination can be extremely profitable. Consider (for example) a deep south restaurant 30 or more years ago that serves only white customers. If they started accepting black customers, their bigoted white customers would desert in droves and go to other all-white restaurants. If all the restaurants are coerced at once into changing policy the vicious cycle will be broken. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/20/85)
>/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) / 2:45 pm Apr 19, 1985 */ >> Discrimination in a free market costs money (see Thomas >> Sowell, "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality"). >On the contrary. Discrimination can be extremely profitable. Consider (for >example) a deep south restaurant 30 or more years ago that serves only white >customers. If they started accepting black customers, their bigoted white >customers would desert in droves and go to other all-white restaurants. >If all the restaurants are coerced at once into changing policy the vicious >cycle will be broken. >-- > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Wrong! If the proprietor is discriminating against blacks only because the majority of his customers desire that he does so, then these customers incur a cost, i.e., they are limiting the number of restaurants that they can eat in.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/23/85)
In article <1340023@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > Wrong! If the proprietor is discriminating against blacks only because > the majority of his customers desire that he does so, then these > customers incur a cost, i.e., they are limiting the number of > restaurants that they can eat in. Isn't it funny that during the first 100 years of freedom, these "costs" were not sufficient to cause changes in the south? If the costs to many are small, and the profits for few are plentiful, then the highly motivated few usually can persuade the indifferent many to maintain the status quo. Ask a southerner 30 years ago if he cared that because of his bigotry he wouldn't eat in a restaurant that would serve blacks. Chances are he'd laugh at you, because there were so few, or because the clientelle was of a different class. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/24/85)
> In article <6323@ucbvax.ARPA> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: > > The freedom to discriminate against ANYBODY is part of a natural notion > > of liberty, not a perverse one. > > "Natural notion of liberty", huh? What makes it a natural notion of liberty? > That it fits in with your wishful thinking? > > Hey, I have a natural notion of liberty which includes the liberty to make > war (and otherwise coerce my neighbors.) Why shouldn't I? > > > Discrimination in a free market costs money (see Thomas > > Sowell, "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality"). > > On the contrary. Discrimination can be extremely profitable. Consider (for > example) a deep south restaurant 30 or more years ago that serves only white > customers. If they started accepting black customers, their bigoted white > customers would desert in droves and go to other all-white restaurants. > If all the restaurants are coerced at once into changing policy the vicious > cycle will be broken. > -- > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh If the hypothetical restaurant is more concerned with pleasing its bigoted white customers rather than its potential black customers, that suggests that bigoted white customers outnumber all others. (That sounds suspiciously like democracy in action, to me.) Let's assume for sake of argument that restaurant A does what you postulate. Unless there are *very* few restaurants in town, at least one of those restaurants has the potential to make a *lot* of money serving a black clientele. Unless the government takes steps to make sure that all the restaurants have the same policy. In fact, many of the discriminatory practices of the South were the result of laws *requiring* those actions. I suggest you look into the Plessy v. Ferguson case. (You should remember that from studying American history; that's the one where the Supreme Court ruled in the 1890s that "separate but equal" was Constitutional.) The case in question involved a Missouri law *requiring* railroads to provide separate accomodations for blacks and whites. The free market couldn't be relied upon to perform this socially desired function of discrimination, so the government made *sure* those greedy businessman did what the government wanted. South Africa's apartheid laws started in the 1920s as a set of restrictions on the jobs offered to blacks, because poor whites weren't always getting the good jobs. The restrictions on where blacks could live were passed because blacks had this disconcerting habit of buying or renting in desireable parts of town, and the government needed to take action to prevent integration of housing. (You'll find that a lot of the discrimination in housing in this country is left over from when cities explicitly prohibited blacks from renting or buying in certain parts of town.) National Socialist Germany had to pass elaborate sets of laws to make sure that Jews would be discriminated against; as an example, a German farmer had to prove Aryan ancestry back to 1800 in order to be a farmer. (I doubt that this law was enforced real vigorously --- there might not have been too many farmers left if they had.) Free markets don't guarantee that there will be no discrimination, but they make it likely that some business will refuse to discriminate because they see an opportunity to make some money serving a market segment that other business owners are too pig-headed to pursue. We don't need government to impose non-discrimination on the marketplace; the government has a long history, in almost all countries, of imposing its will on the marketplace, and with few exceptions, the imposition has been to promote discrimination.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/25/85)
>/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) / 4:05 pm Apr 23, 1985 */ >In article <1340023@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >> Wrong! If the proprietor is discriminating against blacks only because >> the majority of his customers desire that he does so, then these >> customers incur a cost, i.e., they are limiting the number of >> restaurants that they can eat in. >Isn't it funny that during the first 100 years of freedom, these "costs" >were not sufficient to cause changes in the south? You've taken this out of context! I stated that there are costs incurred by discriminators. I did not say that this would cause any action in particular. >If the costs to many are small, and the profits for few are plentiful, >then the highly motivated few usually can persuade the indifferent many >to maintain the status quo. Then the indifferent many are fools! Michael Sykora
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/27/85)
In article <120@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > If the hypothetical restaurant is more concerned with pleasing its bigoted > white customers rather than its potential black customers, that suggests that > bigoted white customers outnumber all others. (That sounds suspiciously like > democracy in action, to me.) If the egalitarians in the country outnumber the white bigots, and enact civil liberties laws prohibiting discrimination, sounds suspiciously like democracy to me. > Let's assume for sake of argument that restaurant A does what you postulate. > Unless there are *very* few restaurants in town, at least one of those > restaurants has the potential to make a *lot* of money serving a black > clientele. Unless the government takes steps to make sure that all the > restaurants have the same policy. In fact, many of the discriminatory > practices of the South were the result of laws *requiring* those actions. The question of which came first, the law or the discrimination, is really irrelevant. They were not made for economic purposes: they were made to promote discrimination. As for your speculation about "a lot of money", there were and still are all-black restaurants and bars that would compete with an integrated restaurant from the other side. > I suggest you look into the Plessy v. Ferguson case. (You should remember > that from studying American history; that's the one where the Supreme Court > ruled in the 1890s that "separate but equal" was Constitutional.) The case > in question involved a Missouri law *requiring* railroads to provide separate > accomodations for blacks and whites. The free market couldn't be relied upon > to perform this socially desired function of discrimination, so the government > made *sure* those greedy businessman did what the government wanted. As you may recall, railroads were essentially monopolies. Free market principles don't apply well to monopolies. > South Africa's apartheid laws started in the 1920s as a set of restrictions on > the jobs offered to blacks, because poor whites weren't always getting the > good jobs. The restrictions on where blacks could live were passed because > blacks had this disconcerting habit of buying or renting in desireable parts > of town, and the government needed to take action to prevent integration of > housing. (You'll find that a lot of the discrimination in housing in this > country is left over from when cities explicitly prohibited blacks from renting > or buying in certain parts of town.) This sort of discrimination takes place nowadays despite the fact it is against the law. How is the free market doing anything to stop it? > National Socialist Germany had to pass elaborate sets of laws to make sure that > Jews would be discriminated against; as an example, a German farmer had to > prove Aryan ancestry back to 1800 in order to be a farmer. (I doubt that this > law was enforced real vigorously --- there might not have been too many farmers > left if they had.) Bizzare interpretation. But what does this have to do with the goofy libertarian idea that a free market should cause discrimination to wither away? > Free markets don't guarantee that there will be no discrimination, but they > make it likely that some business will refuse to discriminate because they see > an opportunity to make some money serving a market segment that other business > owners are too pig-headed to pursue. Great. The owner of an all-black restaurant in Alabama announces that he now will serve whites also. None of his clientelle leave, but no whites come in either. > We don't need government to impose non-discrimination on the marketplace; the > government has a long history, in almost all countries, of imposing its will > on the marketplace, and with few exceptions, the imposition has been to promote > discrimination. We're talking about one of the exceptions. So? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh