need feedback for email debate

I am currently involved in an email discussion/debate with a friend who is also in the field of social work. She is a "liberal democrat." I would definitely describe myself as being a "libertarian." She agreed with my points on the corrupt nature of all governmental institutions. However, she believes poor people and minorities would experience more discrimination in a pro libertarian type of society (I disagree). She also asked me: "But without government who would help the poor and suffering? I explained my view that private, non-coerced parties would do a much better job of helping those who are disabled. I would really appreciate any feedback concerning how to answer her question on battling discrimination in a libertarian society - along with how the severely disabled would be assisted. Much appreciated everyone for your feedback!

So what if they experience discrimination in a libertarian society? As long as it doesn't involve coercion it's well within people's rights to act in such a way. The only alternative is to force them to do otherwise. But that's irrelivent, such behaviour would be discouraged by the free market as it would be highly unprofitable.

Now as for the "who would help the poor and the suffering" tell your friend to stop making appeals to the emotion and use reason instead. But taking 50% of the "poors" income (taxation), stopping them from working (minimum wage), subsidizing unemployment, making their remaining money worthless through inflation and reducing competition between companies by distorting the market in such a way that creates artificially large corporations is hardly the best way to go.

I agree..Excellent points! Is there a convincing way to argue (to a statist liberal-like my friend) that a truly free market would more effectively discourage discrimination thank the system that is presently in place? ..thanks again...

What's the point? If your friend believes it is a right for people to associate with whomever they want, your friend should also agree that they have the freedom to not associate with whomever they want.

Of course it would be discouraged because ultimately anybody refusing to associate with "minorities" would lose buisness to people who would be willing to. But that's their choice and you're nobody to judge them for it. If they're willing to forego profit in order to only serve a certain race then that's their choice, and the alternative is violence to stop this.

 

Ask your friend if she would engage in discrimination. She is obviously going to say "no." Then ask her if she thinks the great majority of people will engage in discrimination. If she says "no" again - then problem solved already. She's going to likely say "yes" - perhaps qualify it with something, but it will be a yes nonetheless. Here you can show her the silliness of that position - if that's the case, then how are we to prevent that with the government? If most people want to discriminate, then how would we vote to end discrimination by way of the State? She has to accept the idea that most people will not discriminate for the statist solution to work - yet, in accepting that, she accepts that it would work in a voluntary situation too.

Same line of reasoning for charity. Would she give to charity without the state? Yes. Would others? Answer doesn't matter, either way she must accept that it would work at least as well in the voluntary society.

Morty:

Same line of reasoning for charity. Would she give to charity without the state? Yes. Would others? Answer doesn't matter, either way she must accept that it would work at least as well in the voluntary society.

Well, not that we'd have as much need for charity in a voluntary society.