Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: "Perverse" libertarian notion of liberty.
Message-ID: <434@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Apr-85 20:43:53 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.434
Posted: Wed Apr 17 20:43:53 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 05:17:39 EST
Followup-To: net.politics.theory
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 47

In article <> adam@npois.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) writes:
>Actually, a libertarian's notion of Liberty is even more "perverse" than
>that: it includes a junkie's right to mainline heroin, and a masochist's
>right to get beaten to bloody shit by a consenting sadist. It would be
>difficult to locate a tyrant who denies his subjects the freedom to do
>things he approves of. You don't qualify as a defender of freedom until
>you stand up for the right of all people, not just to actions you can
>empathize with, but even to actions you hate, as long they do not
>infringe the equal freedom of others.

It's still more perverse than that, Adam.  Libertarians hold that the
only kind of freedom worth defending is freedom from direct coercion
by individuals.  They further maintain that the highest good, or
perhaps the only ethical good, is the maximizing of this particular
kind of freedom.  If this isn't perverse it is at least arbitrary; I
haven't yet come across a persuasive or plausible defense of this
view.

Thus when libertarians describe anti-discrimination laws as
"anti-liberty," we must understand "liberty" in this particular
sense, and that such laws are *eo ipso* unjustified according to the
libertarian philosophy.  

As Barry Fagin writes:

>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....In any case, since non-coercive techniques are
>available to combat the perceived evils of discrimination, why use
>coercive ones?

This is written in the standard libertarian question-begging mode.
The question being begged is whether the only standard for judgment
should be the minimizing of coercion by individuals.  

>It is the Free Economy that will benefit victims of discrimination
>the most, and not more coercive legislation.  

The attribution of apparently magical powers to free market systems
leads some of us to suspect libertarians of dogmatic habits of
thought.  I think that markets can do some important things but not
others.  Let us have some demonstrations of claims such as the one
quoted above; let us first have a definition of a "Free Economy,"
since I am not sure I understand exactly what this is.

Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes