Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: (Re:**N) Affirmative Action Message-ID: <7800353@inmet.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 12:41:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.7800353 Posted: Tue Jul 9 12:41:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 22:49:33 EDT References: <259@kontron.UUCP> Lines: 115 Nf-ID: #R:kontron:-25900:inmet:7800353:000:5962 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jul 9 12:41:00 1985 >/**** inmet:net.politics / cybvax0!mrh / 2:11 pm Jul 8, 1985 ****/ >In article <1340265@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >> >/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) / 3:23 pm Jul 5, 1985 */ >> >> >I grow very tired of these ignorant, ivory-tower economic predictions. >> >> Seriously, when you call someone ignorant, it would be best if you >> demonstrated that this is true. Calling a prediction "ivory-tower" >> says nothing about its merits and, therefore, does not seem to be of >> any use here. > >Simple demonstration of both "ignorance" and "ivory tower" in libertarianism: >no such social order has ever existed. Thus, libertarian "predictions" >are guesses whose quality is probably less in touch with reality than the >inaccurate predictions of social scientists, economists, etc. trying to >understand the society right under their noses. It is also true that no perfect vacuum is available for study. On the other hand, rather libertarian societies HAVE existed. To give two examples, ancient Iceland, and medieval (NOT feudal) Ireland (social groups of 80 or so were the social unit, and there were no kings of consequence, and membership in a group was voluntary). Both of these societies had their un-libertarian aspects as well (in particular, I doubt, given the time, that they treated women as full human beings, but don't know), but to argue that no libertarian society has ever existed is to argue from ignorance. >> >If you are so certain that there is a financial benefit to not discriminating >> >go into a bigoted white neighborhood, build housing, announce (by word or >> >deed) that you're a "nigger lover" (they'll call you that), and that you >> >intend to outcompete them because of this pragmatism. >> >> >You will very quickly see many of the mechanisms by which discrimination is >> >reinforced despite market pressures. The fact is that there are many forms >> >of coercion besides market pressures, and postulating a libertarian society >> >without coercion is as realistic as wishing away crime in our own society. >> >Vandalism, arson, assault, and a variety of other hate (think Ku Klux Klan) >> >are coercive realities that must be dealt with. >> >> Market pressures are not coercion. > >Libertarians may construct a legal definition of coercion which exempts >market pressures, yet market pressures are coercive and can force decisions >against the will. It is true that market pressures are coercive to the extent that they force people to make choices -- but even choosing not to choose qualifies as a choice. Markets INITIATE no force, which is the point. As for your notions that market pressures are coercive, let's check out coercion in "Webster's New World": co-erce 1. to restrain or constrain by force, esp. by legal authority; curb 2. to force or compel to do something 3. to bring about by using force; enforce -- SYN. see FORCE. (under force, the following note about synonyms) SYN -- force implies the exertion of power in causing a person or thing to act, move, or comply against his or its resistance and may refer to physical strength or to any impelling motive [circumstances forced him to lie]; compel implies a driving irresistibly to some action, condition, etc.; to coerce is to compel submission or obedience through the use of superior power, intimidation, threats, etc.; Now, it is true that people may be "forced" to live up to their obligations in a libertarian society (it's fraud if they don't), but the only way that a market can be said to involve force is in (for example) debt collection, which in turn implies (at some point) voluntary acceptance of the conditions involved ("I'll let you folks reclaim my car if I don't keep up the payments"), or in keeping people from stealing. >> Such acts as you describe are already against the law. What we need is >> tougher enforcement. > >Then what makes you think libertarianism would provide tougher enforcement? >Who will pay for it? Certainly not the well-to-do white majorities. >They'll be happy to pay to continue the repression though. Support, please, for the notion that repression is popular among the "white majorities". In particular, why hasn't Congress undone a lot of equal-opportunity stuff? >> >30 years of stronger government >> >coercion has produced sudden and dramatic lifting of barriers, as a variety >> >of history and occupational statistics show. >> >> During the past 30 years great gains (and a few losses) in civil rights >> have been made. During that period, government has taken an active role >> in promoting such rights (and, to a lesser extent, in attacking them). >> From these facts alone, one cannot draw the conclusion that you have. > >Golly, if I can't draw a conclusion in the face of the "coincidence" of >programs and their intended results, then why should we try your untested >libertarian solutions? Because if you draw your conclusions from the same ignorance that was the basis of your accusation that there'd been no libertarian societies, and in the face of "Losing Ground", and without allowing for the notion that POLITICAL stances FOLLOW popular ones, then you are drawing foolish conclusions, and that you have draw foolish conclusions from insufficient information in no way implies things about how other people should act. (Except, perhaps, when you ask them to lend you money :-) I'm particularly intrigued by the fact that teenage black unemployment was the SAME as teenage white unemployment; are you implying that the intended result of minimum wage has been achieved? Just as there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, there has been no such thing as a perfectly libertarian society. So what? We may draw conclusions about vacuums from the characteristics of better and better vacuums, and we may draw conclusions (albeit tentative ones, given the lack of repeatability) from freer and less free societies.