Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ucbvax!fagin
From: fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarians and ERA
Message-ID: <6323@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 17-Apr-85 15:23:53 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.6323
Posted: Wed Apr 17 15:23:53 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 03:34:36 EST
References: <1340016@acf4.UUCP> <3564@alice.UUCP> <132@ttrdc.UUCP>
Reply-To: fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 43
Summary: 

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