KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (12/23/86)
[ Well, them laws was created to try and correct a perceived
imbalance in the employment of minorities. By your rule - if the
electorate allows it to stand, they want it - the American people
wants these laws.
It doesn't matter what they want. The whole point of liberty is
that the individual is not bound by the wishes of the majority, except
when he harms others.
It is farfetched to say that failing to hire a person is harming
him. One might equally argue that failing to work for a given
employer harms that employer, or that failing to shop at a certain
store harms the owner of that store, or that my failing to send
messages to this list harms the other readers of this list.
Or is your argument simply that the majority is always right? By
that standard, those discrimination laws ARE just (at least in the
North) but then so was slavery (at least in the South) when most
people approved of it. And so was Naziism (Hitler WAS elected). And
Communism. And the Constitution is pointless, since it explicitly
restricts the power of the majority.
...
Further, the idea that races (or if you prefer, individuals of a
given race) are discriminated against is a fact.
There is a big difference. In "affirmative action", discrimination
against individuals is mandated, in order to oppose discrimination
against a race. When a less qualified person is hired in preference
to a more qualified person, because of his race, that is
discrimination. Government now REQUIRES this, in cases where there is
statistical evidence of past discrimination. Not past discrimination
against the individuals involved, but against other individuals who
happen to have been of the same race.
One cannot have both the INDIVIDUAL and the RACE as the purpose of
government. SOMETHING has to be on top. If it is the race, it is not
the individual, and individuals can be discriminated against because
of their race (or if you prefer, because of the actions of other
individuals of the same race). This is current Federal policy, and
this is evil.
The Democrats, like the Nazis, consider RACE the purpose of
government. Or more generally, the special interest group. The
Republicans consider GOD the purpose of government. They believe (or
claim to believe) they are implementing God's will. Neither party
puts the INDIVIDUAL on top, or considers him relevent to government.
If I deny every individual of a given skin color a job because
that skin color, I discriminate.
True. What's your point? It is government mandated discrimination
that is evil. If an individual discriminates, he is simply exercising
his right of free association. If he refuses to hire blacks as
employees, or if he refuses to serve black customers, it is he who
suffers, due to loss of the talents of the black potential employees,
the loss of the business of the black potential customers, and quite
probably due to a ruinous boycott.
The blacks can always work and shop elsewhere. The only exception
is if virtually everyone refuses to hire them or serve them. This can
only happen if virtually everyone is prejudiced against them. And if
they are, there simply won't BE any anti-discrimination laws, and if
they were, they would be as ignored as the 55 mph speed limit.
There is a lot of discrimination, often actively encouraged by the
government, against less politically powerful groups. Drug users are
an example of this, as are gays.
I don't see how you are going to stop your libertarian
government from becoming very like the current one. The powers
you grant are very similar to the original ones granted the US
Federal government ...
The main thing is for the people to be educated. I could name extra
amendments that should have been in the Bill of Rights, and I could
say that some parts of the Constitution should NOT be changable by
congress or by anyone at any future time, but the people of one time
cannot impose their will (however benevolent) on the people of a later
time. ANY constitution and ANY amendment can be rescinded or ignored.
What is needed is for individuals to understand the reasons behind
individual liberties, and why it is an astoundingly bad idea to
restrict these liberties, even for such causes as:
o A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage
o Prevent monopolies
o Prevent discrimination
o War on poverty
o War on drugs
o War on pornography
o Prevent war
o Energy - moral equivalent of war
o Whip Inflation Now
o Prevent teenage pregnancy
and other government programs and policies to which we are told
individual rights must be subordinated.
I thought defence was to be privatized - if its going to be
voluntarily funded, why give it to the government? - and there
wouldn't be any new laws, I thought.
The various sorts of libertarians and objectivists differ on those
points.
...Keith
[ Hitler was not elected, he was appointed by Hindenburg as
Chancellor, and as near as I can remember, the Nazis NEVER had a
parlimentary majority up until Hitler made all other parties illegal.
Interestingly enough, the discrimination against blacks (that
various 'afirmative action' sought to defeat) was for the most part
carried out by individuals - not the federal government. In your
view this was not evil then?
Rather handy the way you waved away the defence issue. I'll have
to remember that one! :-) - CWM]
-------