Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'segregation'.
-
Of course arguing the values of segregation of the state is a moot point on a board of anarchists, so I'll argue against private discrimination based on race. The NAP and a respect for property rights are fundamental to an Anarcho-Capitialist society. Taking on of private obligations is perfectly consistent with that moral foundation. Thus contracts can exist within an AnCap society. If one cannot take on private obligations voluntarily...well it's a non starter. A charge against a contractor called "unjust enrichment" finds that when one agrees to receive a benefit in exchange for giving something of value, what has occurred breaks the terms of the underlying contract (when they fail to give that thing of value, upon receiving a benefit). One gains a benefit by being in a market which participates and exchanges freely with others, blind to the contributions of individual races. When such a person discriminates against an individual race, they are unjustly enriched because they receive the network benefit of the larger market, but do not return the benefit in kind. This would not apply to a community that chose to isolate itself from the larger local/global community and simply operated in a self sufficient fashion. A quick example from ye ol Wikipedia "suppose that A makes an oral contract with B under which A will pay $100 for certain services to be provided by B. Further suppose that A pays the money but B discovers that, pursuant to legislation, contracts for such services are void unless in writing. B refuses to perform. Can A recover his payment? On both approaches, B is unjustly enriched at A's expense. On the "absence of basis" approach, B's enrichment has no legitimate explanatory basis because the contract was void. On the "unjust factor" approach, there has been a total failure of consideration; that is, A has received no part of the bargained-for counter-performance; restitution follows automatically from the fact of invalidity.' This is my best defense of Libertarian anti-discrimination that I can come up with. Does this argument hold up?