@Mord: Here, let's have a discussion in good faith.
Mord, today wrote:An actual good faith response to my post would explain the process by which libertarian rules as applied to the world of today would mitigate and ultimately eliminate racism as it manifests in processes such as redlining. This is something AC0 will not provide, because Libertarianism offers no such mechanism and is uninterested in mechanisms in general.
Mord, yesterday wrote:You have argued that in a world run by libertarian rules racism would never come to be, but you have never described the process by which libertarian rules, implemented today in the world that exists, would mitigate the racism that factually exists in reality.
OK, simply: I never said that in a world run by Libertarian rules, racism would never come to be. Can you quote me? I do think that in a world "run by Libertarian rules" racists could not and would not get away with lynching people, burning people, bombing churches, vandalizing property, or intimidating people with threats of force, violence, coercion, etc. Why do I think this? Because one of the Libertarian core principles is, for the umpteenth time:
freedom from violence, coercion, force, etc. as these things are unjust EXCEPT in (self-)defense. That means that the Law's sole (legitimate) purpose, is to prevent INJUSTICE - to prevent the use of violence, coercion, and force in any form
other than defense. What is the mechanism of defense of individuals and groups? The use of violence, coercion, force. As far as I am concerned, that is the only legitimate use of violence, coercion, force, etc. To that extent, once the rights of liberty and property are secured by the mechanism of what we may call JUST violence, coercion, force, etc. then The Law, once limited to this sole purpose, safeguards the Rights of ALL, regardless of race, creed, sexuality, intelligence, weight, height, you name it.
But you mention
eliminating racism. I don't think you can
eliminate racism unless you were to
eliminate people. But unless the racism is overtly antagonistic (using violence, coercion, force), people must be allowed to be "racist". I put the quotation marks because discrimination and preference go hand-in-hand. People must be allowed to associate with whoever they wish, and disassociate themselves from whoever they wish. If this isn't allowed, then we have violated the founding principle(s) - we are FORCING integration, of one group against their will at the behest of another. Now, this would probably result in ethnic, racial, religions, or political enclaves. That is fine, as long as they aren't violating the Rights of others. And this may very well be preferable, as groups of people would have increased local control over their own territories. Examples like Black Wall Street, Little Italy, Chinatown, and the Amish prove that this can work just fine. Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Hong Kong, and Singapore are even better. Further, I think that people who are looking to enrich themselves by serving their fellow man will not base their choices of partners, customers, clientele, producers, manufacturers, or whathaveyou on the basis of race, creed, sexuality, etc. I will try to find the evidence if pressed, but I've read that during the Jim Crow era, white business owners were complaining the "special accommodations" the law required them to make in order to serve black people was hurting their bottom line, when before they associated and dealt freely at their own discretion, even though the etiquette of servility and inferiority that was expected of blacks is distasteful by today's standards. But I have a feeling that these answers won't satisfy you, because you probably do not think equality of opportunity is enough, you probably want equality of outcome, which I think is impossible - people are too varied in their interests, talents, backgrounds, experience, etc, etc. And I think attempting to
force equality of outcome by Govt decree serves only to stifle economic growth and prosperity, which the evidence indicates is exactly what has happened, on top of violating real Rights.
This is why I said libertarians are ignorant of the fact that 10,000 years of history have already happened, [...] the existence of history is important because any policies you propose have to be evaluated in the context of the world we live in, not a hypothetical blank slate society.
This is why I say you guys misunderstand or misrepresent Libertarianism. It is precisely because the preceding 10,000 years of human history are rife with examples of what happens when people do not recognize natural rights and work to secure them, that I think Libertarianism is so sound. The absence or disregard of such principles results in tragedies and travesties like conquest, pillaging, slavery, and genocide.