Ladies and Gentlemen! Welcome to tonight’s “shrieking like a cat with a firework up its arse” final! In the steely grey corner…he’s known for his confrontational sandwich board style…give it up for Mr Miserablist Fundie Christian! And his opponent…in the pink fluffy corner, watch out for his/her (not sure from here) cross-dressing, pinching, hair-pulling action…please welcome Mr Whiny Gay Rights Activist!
*cue wild applause*
Ahem! The above contest is never a fun one to watch, but unfortunately for us it’s being replayed once more right before our bemused faces in the form of a spat over new laws recently introduced to Northern Ireland, and coming soon to the rest of the UK, which make it illegal to refuse goods and services to people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. The thought of these laws have the gay rights lobby cumming in their pants while our religious brethren foam at the mouth. As for the rest of us, we can only hope our ears don’t bleed too much from the hysterical high-pitched screeching emanating from both sides.
Basically this new law means that if you happen to be a fundie Christian who runs a hotel and who would rather not have a bunch of homosexuals romping over one’s fresh bed linen, well there’s pretty much nothing you can do about it (except wash the sheets afterwards). Alternatively, if you happen to be straight and fancy a frolic in the local gay bar you can’t be thrown out for your reluctance to get it on with Big Bearded “Bertha” in a dark and dingy toilet cubical. And you are welcome to sue any managers up the arse if they want to act differently.
Of course, gay people want to be loved, accepted, and tolerated. However, placard wielding religious quacks want to hate, reject and not tolerate gays. So, in our rent-a-right culture each side has claimed that they have an inalienable right at stake: gay people claiming to have a right to be treated a certain way by anyone else who thinks differently; religious folks a right to act as they have been instructed by Big G in Heaven. And both sides seem to think that the government should be pushing their case. Regrettably, but not surprisingly, both sides have missed the point.
The gay rights lobby has been tossing around words like “equality,” “discrimination” and “respect” with reckless abandon, as if the mere mention of such words makes their case incontrovertible. But no one has a right to be treated equally by anyone in inter-personal relationships. As human beings we all value different things - including other people - differently. We make judgments and act accordingly. If I don’t like you - for whatever reason - perhaps because you have big curly ginger pubes, and I hate those bastards - then I should be under no legal obligation to treat you “equally,” whatever this actually means. I don’t want to be your friend, I don’t want to do nice things for you, and I don’t want to have any dealings with you and your Big. Curly. Ginger. Pubes. And no amount of government legislation can convince me to love you (and your BCGP’s) and be your buddy. In fact, if you try to have me compelled by force to do so then I’ll simply hate and resent you all the more - a fact utterly lost on the gay rights lobby who continue with self-inflected shots to the feet through the pursuit of such self-crippling and self-defeating policies.
The word “discrimination” is always used side by side with “equality,” since “discrimination” is almost always thought to breach some immovable principle of equality. It doesn’t. To discriminate is to exercise your conscience and act in accordance with your own values. Discriminating is a normal - and good - human function. It’s the people who can’t or won’t discriminate that worry me - they tend to lack personal values, courage, intelligence, conscience, and are utterly devoid of principle. In fact the claim that everyone is equal is one of the most ignorant, irrational and immoral statements one could ever utter. If a Christian does not wish to have gay people on his own property then that is an act of discrimination - of using his or her own conscience to make a decision to act in accordance to his own values. Although we may not agree with him, his act of discrimination is perfectly legitimate.
The only proviso I will add here in terms of equality is that we are all “equal” under the law - but in practice this means that should I murder someone I don’t get favourable treatment from the court simply because I’m straight, white, male, or the owner of non-ginger pubes. It certainly doesn’t mean that government should ride rough-shod over personal values and force its citizens to treat each other with equal respect. Respect is something that must be earned, and some people will inevitably be more deserving of it than others. No-one is inherently worthy of it, as is often thought to be the case in these dark politically correct times.
To be honest it’s rather difficult not to interpret the screams from the gay rights lobby as desperate cries for love and acceptance. They want to be loved and accepted by everyone else, and if we don’t want to love and accept them then they’ll damned well try to make sure we are compelled by an act of parliament to do so. But you can’t win love, acceptance and tolerance this way, because you won’t have persuaded anyone. An act of parliament is an act of force. It does not a cogent argument make.
The placard waving religious brethren on the other hand have made this an issue of religious rights - as if the sheer fact that something is an article of faith is good enough reason for government legislation to bend accordingly. We must remember that many of these religious folks who regard homosexuality as a deviant sin would see it outlawed altogether along with a host of other activities - from drinking to dancing - that they regard as a deviation from God’s standard. But “God’s Standard,” whatever that is exactly, is not and cannot be a rational basis for any society. Nevertheless these control freaks think they have a right - a divinely gifted one - to impose their will on the rest of us. Thank God they aren’t on the throne.
This debate perfectly illustrates the truth of the maxim - “for every action there is an equal right you can rent to defend it and ward off any criticism.” Unfortunately few of these rights are genuine. As it is the debate here does not fundamentally concern any of the aforementioned “rights.” There is only one right at stake here and it has yet to be mentioned by a single commentator:
THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY
If someone owns property then they can pretty much use it as they see fit. For this reason I must side with the fundie Christians on this debate, although on totally different grounds. My home is exactly that: MY home. MY property. Not yours. Not government’s. As such it should be up to me to decide who does and who doesn’t cross the threshold. The same principle holds (or should hold) for all privately owned bars, clubs, hotels, or other businesses. So, if a fundamentalist Christian does not wish to have gay visitors then that is his or her own business choice regarding their private property. This shouldn’t be seen as a slap in the face for so-called “gay equality,” since gay property owners have exactly the same rights to choose who does and doesn’t enter. Thus, if the owner of a gay club doesn’t like the fact that I’ve just spurned the moves of Big Bearded “Bertha” then he can ask me to leave if he wishes. If people don’t like the policy of any given hotel, bar, club, or business then they are welcome to take their custom somewhere else. Consumers and customers are not without power. So when it comes to private property and business it is for the owners and only the owners to make such decisions, and then accept the consequences, whatever they may be. This is a basic property right and it is utterly shameful that it should be so maligned and ignored.
Exactly the same principle holds for the provision of goods and services. Goods and services are owned by someone. Most are not public property. Just whose goods and services are we talking about? Goods and services are not communally owned. They are provided by someone, and, as a form of private property, they should be treated in exactly the same way. Of course, a rational business owner does what he does to make money. In order to do so he must have as wide a customer base as possible, and thus it is highly unlikely that many business people will voluntarily reject the custom of anyone.
If anyone would like to discuss these issues further then you are welcome to come round to my house - except, that is, if you have Big Curly Ginger Pubes.
Stephen Graham
34 responses so far ↓
1 John Wright // Jan 18, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Hilarious and sharp with merciless logic as usual, Stephen. May God smite your enemies with Big Curly Ginger Pubes.
2 Rosalita Paglia // Jan 18, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Stephen I honestly have to stop several times in the middle of reading your blogs to keep myself from missing anything due to laughing. Anyway you are right, but I think some people will find it difficult to accept a society where anythign goes. I know you don’t accept that it is possible, but what if a society universally didn’t accept a certain kind of person, would we need a law to correct that until people would do it voluntarily? Just playing devils adovcate.
3 Jeff WA // Jan 18, 2007 at 8:22 pm
The whole thing about pubes is what concerns me……….
4 Anonymous // Jan 18, 2007 at 10:08 pm
I think there is a place for law within a free society. I believe that as a libertarian. The limited function of the law is to uphold freedom, to protect people from abuse and harm, and to protect property. I think, on this basis, it is right that we should have laws banning certain kinds of discrimination. If I apply for a job and am turned down because I am female or black or white, the company should face legal penalties. If I wish to exclude you from my home because you are white or black, that is my business and the law should have no role. If I choose to operate a commercial concern from my home, I place my home in a new category before the law and legitimate anti-discrimination legislation should apply to my home-business. In the goods and services example you are satirising to some degree in this piece, I would argue that the state has a legitimate role in protecting citizens from discrimination in commercial provision.
5 Anonymous // Jan 18, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Rosalita paglia, go with your original intuition on this one. You are entirely right on both theoretical and practical grounds. The author’s proposal is practically impossible to the extent that it would lead to social convulsions every five minutes (and very probably bloodshed). Theoretically I also think you are on to something in that this debate is not just abou the limits of the law but also about the duty of lawmakers. Lawmakers have a duty to act in some cases to protect individual citizens. The law is not required to protect citizens from “offence” or “embarrassment” or require others to like or love a particular citizen (who, seriously, has ever suggested this interpretation in any case). The law does have a role in standing up for individuals when their rights have been assaulted.
Ultimately this comes down to the kind of society one wishes to inhabit. The Hobbesian society envisaged, between the lines, in this post would be, as Hobbes suggested, one were life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. I think we can do better than that, and aspire to better than that.
6 Anonymous // Jan 18, 2007 at 10:21 pm
p.s., since I happened across this site by accident and don’t know the authors - good to meet you, by the way! - can I ask for a little more information about where you both do journalism and legal philosophy respectively? Do you have links to other sites, etc?
7 S Quinney // Jan 19, 2007 at 8:25 am
Protecting citizens from themselves, Anonymous? That sounds very Orwellian, no? You say you’re a libertarian……
8 Stephen // Jan 19, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Thanks for the comments folks.
Rosalita: A libertarian society wouldn’t be “anything goes” there would still be a fair amount of criminal and civil law. You ask about a scenario in which one type of person is universally rejected and would we need a law to correct it. My response is that we wouldn’t need such a law. If your society is built on rational principles then those principles don’t become irrational just because in a given instance there isn’t a nice consequence. Either the principles are sound or they are not - if they are, then apply them, regardless. In any event, I don’t this would - or could - happen, as you recognise - for two reasons: human goodness and human greed. I have a relatively high opinion of human nature and seriously doubt any such situation would arise. Secondly, human greed ensures that custom will not be rejected by rational self-interested business people. If all your competitors refuse to deal with any given group of people think how much a business stands to gain from accepting this group - a massive commericial and PR advantage. In my experience business people largely couldn’t care less where their money comes from.
Anonymous:
How do you uphold freedom through government interference in private relationships and issues of person value? That makes no sense. How do you protect property with such a policy? How are people protected from harm through an act of government force to make them act and behave a certain way? Government legislation on such matters almost always bring more harm than good. Your position is not libertarian, not in the strict sense. You seem to see a distinction between private domestic property nad private business property - on what grounds? I can’t see any basis for legal prosecution of privately run businesses who exclude certain people from their market.
In any event, why is this legal protection needed in your view? How many successful businesses do you know that practice such policies? In this debate the example given constantly in the media and printed press is that of a christian hotel owner - but, seriously, how many of them actually exist? Ironically I think the gay community have more to worry about with their many gays-only events and venues.
I believe strongly in human goodness and self-interest. Together these pillars would prevent the sort of social convulsions you reckon would come to being under the policies I advance. Or is your opinion of humanity so low and your view of the rationality of business owners rock bottom?
You refer to the “State of Nature” Hobbes wrote about. But, this “State of Nature” is anarchist - no government - no criminal law - no civil law. This isn’t libertarian at all. Are you sure you’re a libertarian? Not only do your comments make me doubt your statement of political belief, but they make me doubt that you properly understand what libertarianism is.
Anyhow…good to meet you! You ask about my background: I studied theology and philosophy at Queens University in Belfast and ever since then my main interests have been religious, ethical and political philosophy. My current job involves legal research with a large law company in Northern Ireland. There isn’t much philosophy involved I’m afraid, just a lot of digging around Acts of parliament and case law.
Welcome to LR.
Stephen
9 Mark (georgia) // Jan 19, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Agree with this Stephen, this law is an enfringeing of liberties of business owners to conduct it as they see fit, you are quite right to say that it isn’t anyone else’s business how they decide to do business or who they decide to do business with and why. Most on this side of the pond would instinctively know this but clearly there are some who disagree.
10 Anonymous // Jan 19, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Well, that was a stinger of a response. You don’t regard me as a Libertarian? I’ll have to resign my membership of the Libertarian Party then, whuch strongly advocates BOTH a minimal state AND civil liberties. That’s the last time I allow my name to go on A libertarian ticket in a county-wide election! Seriously, I’m not sure precisely what role you believe there is for any civil legislation. Thanks for your reply guys, even if we are clearly reading different books.
11 Stephen // Jan 20, 2007 at 2:52 am
Anonymous:
Stating your credentials does not a cogent argument make. You haven’t answered any of my questions and challenges.
You are right - libertarianism is about a minimal state and civil liberties, but what you advocate violates civil liberties. Thus, it isn’t libertarian. What I advocate does NOT violate civil liberties. It leaves people free to negotiate their inter-personal relationships in accordance with their conscience.
Why is it difficult to see what place there is in my view for civil or indeed criminal law. Criminal law is necessary for the protection of property rights and the right to life of all citizens - thus laws against murder, theft, rape, are essential. Civil law is essential because people enter formal contractual relationships with one another and an objective standard is required to protect each party in the event of a breach.
SG
12 Anonymous // Jan 20, 2007 at 6:06 am
Hi - been reading this exchange - im a friend of the other anonymous - he told me about this and I came in to see for myself. I am NOT a libertarian by the way. Just an interested bystander. Wondering about civil liberties laws though because some here seeem to want to restict the law to property protection and protection of life. SO you wouldn’t have the Civil Rights Act?
The debate about the definition of libertarian is crazy, given that my friend (who’s asked me not to mention his identity) has been a libertarian for years, successfully stood for office and is author of a book on the topic.
It just confirms my favourite quote on this from Chomsky:
“There isn’t much point arguing about the word “libertarian.” It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word “democracy” — recall that they called what they’d constructed “peoples’ democracies.” The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called “libertarian” here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that “libertarian,” fine; after all, Stalin called his system “democratic.” But why bother arguing about it?”
Anyway, that won’t impress any of you guys. Enjoy.
13 Stephen // Jan 20, 2007 at 6:40 am
Anonymous No.2:
Why is a debate about the meaning and essense of libertarianism useless? Moreso, why is it useless on the grounds that your friend is Mr Libertarian Himself, seemingly?
Would you claim that Chomsky’s quote applies to my version of libertarianism? My version isn’t ultra-right - it defies that sort of out-dated linear left-right understanding of the political spectrum. My version of libertarianism is individualist, correct, but tell me a version of libertarianism that isn’t and I’ll show you something that isn’t libertarianism at all. Moreover, my own view isn’t anarchism of any breed - to even try to charge me with that is not only to misunderstand my position but to betray a lack of understanding about the nature of anarchism, which is, no offence intended, the sort of mistake I’d expect of a high school junior. Lastly, there is nothing “unaccountable” about the society I advocate. There is still accountability - it just isn’t all formal accountability to government.
SG
14 S Quinney // Jan 20, 2007 at 10:58 am
Anonymouses, a basic understanding of libertarianism yields this principle: an action should be illegal only if it violates or infringes the freedoms of another. The freedom infringed by this law is the freedom to do business with whoever you want for whatever reason you want. Your endorsement of this law yields a very UN-libertarian answer: that the state is entitled to tell people how to do business. How do you defend your position from this charge?
Regards,
Quinney
15 Stephen // Jan 20, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Anonymouses?
I would have went for Anonymi.
Is there a collective noun for anonymous?
Horses for Courses.
SG
16 Anonymous // Jan 20, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Stephen,
Not “went for”, but “gone for”, surely?
I didn’t understand very uch of your last comment, so I’ll try again with this.
Perhaps, to understand your position, you’d deal with a couple one example.
(a) Should it be against the law in the US for a company to refuse to hire a well-qualified candidate because that company has a policy of not hiring black people?
I’d appreciate it if you would address this case study. Thanks.
17 S Quinney // Jan 20, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Anonymi- Are you ignoring my question, or is it too philosophical for you?
18 Anonymous // Jan 20, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Ms/Mr Quinney - I don’t know enough about your views on Libertarianism to adress them fully, I’m afraid. Iw ould simply ask you to reflect on the question I put to Stephen and get back to me with an answer. Then I’ll understand where you are coming from.
For the record, I don’t object to philosophical questions; far from it, I’ve a PhD in economics and politics which was undertaken under with a quite well-known Libertarian academic as my advisor. Not that this makes me an expert, of course; but it makes the point that I am not approaching this without having spent some time thinking about it.
19 S Quinney // Jan 20, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Anonymous- I’m happy to deal with your question (though I note you haven’t dealt with mine). And I do also respect the fact that your credentials are libertarian: it makes it easier to cut to the chase in an argument like this (though posting as Anonymous certainly makes it more difficult to identify a real person in the discussion; is there any particular reason for it?). I’m sure there is much I could learn from someone with your academic experience.
But we disagree.
Your question was: “Should it be against the law in the US for a company to refuse to hire a well-qualified candidate because that company has a policy of not hiring black people?” I’d venture that there aren’t many companies like that around, if any, which is actually a perfectly good point to make in response, if we’re considering pragmatic as well as philosophical concerns. If a black person may not work at this company due to its racist policy, can he/she not work at the myriad of other companies which find such policies disgusting? If you are an economist you will know that a free market will make the existence of such companies inevitable.
I suspect your response will be to say that such is beside the point; it is their RIGHT to work at whichever company they choose. So we should FORCE that company to accept black people, against their wishes, abominable as those wishes may be. I say that in turn violates another right: the right to OWN a business. When you own something, Anonymous, you get to make those calls for yourself. Otherwise, you don’t own it. There is no right to work at whichever company you like, and anyone who claims that has made up a right. I continue to be surprised that a libertarian would support a law that will tell a business owner with whom they MUST do business. I continue to contend that that is NOT a libertarian approach.
So we’re talking about two rights here: the right to choose with whom you do business, and the right to choose whom you work for. The one with regard to the business owner in this case, the other with regard to the job applicant. Neither of those rights violate the other, EXCEPT when you introduce a law that tells a business owner it is illegal to discriminate on whichever grounds he feels like.
Am I wrong?
Regards,
Quinney
20 Stephen // Jan 21, 2007 at 6:47 am
Anonymous:
My response to your question should be obvious given what I said in this article.
My answer is that a privately run business can reject any candidate for whatever reason they like - black, white, tall, short, left-handed, right-handed, gay, straight, normal pubes or big curly ginger ones.
The reason is found in the above article and many others contributed to this website. Quinney’s response also pretty much nails the issue.
SG
21 Anonymous // Jan 21, 2007 at 7:29 am
“an action should be illegal only if it violates or infringes the freedoms of another”
Do practices upholding racial discrimination violate or infringe the freedoms of others?
I argue that they do. If you agree with me, you’ll need to revise your position on employment law. Otherwise, you will need to revise your definition of libertarianism or show how race-based discrimination does not infringe a black person’s liberties.
At least we are clear that I am talking to people who oppose civil rights legislation in the United States.
22 Stephen // Jan 21, 2007 at 7:37 am
Anonymous:
I don’t believe it does violate his rights. He has no right to work for any business. No one has such a “right.” I think you are confusing positive rights with negative ones. Libertarianism, as I advocate, is interested in negative rights - the right to be left alone to conduct ones private affairs according to ones conscience. You appear to advocate positive rights - the right to given something - a job, goods, services. I don’t find that remotely libertarian.
SG
23 John Wright // Jan 21, 2007 at 10:28 am
I’ve also been watching this exchange with interest, and believe I may be able to shed some light upon the reasons for the disagreement.
I think we’ve come upon 2 distinct types of libertarianism. What is advocated on this blog is the libertarianism of rights-theorists like myself and Stephen. In the words of Wikipedia, us rights-theorists hold that “…it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction, should be voluntary and consensual.” In the case of a black person looking for employment, the government should not be able to force the employer to hire.
What you appear to be advocating, Anonymous, is a form of consequentialist libertarianism. “Consequentialist libertarians, instead of having moral prohibitions against initiation of force, accept those actions which they believe result in the maximum liberty even if it requires some initiation of force.” In your case you wish to make the choices of minorities more ‘free’ and so advocate that the government step in to initialise force on their behalf.
Wikipedia goes on to identify rights-theorists as anarchists and consequentialist libertarians as those who see a need for some government. I believe the article is incorrect on this point. What we advocate here at Libertarian Reason is a minimalist form of government, not anarchism. Earlier in the Wikipedia entry, I notice that many rights-theorists “…are individualist anarchists or Objectivists.” Ayn Rand, the creator of Objectivism, would have cracked at the suggestion that she was advocating a society without government. So, in my opinion, the Wikipedia description needs some clean-up.
But I think, Anonymous, that most libertarians are rights-theorists who would agree with Stephen on this issue. We can put that to the test, if you like, by consulting several other well-known libertarian groups or websites and checking their understanding of rights-based libertarianism. I’d be happy to take a poll, if it would settle this one.
By the way, I agree with Quinney that anyone who claims that it’s someone’s right to work at whatever company they like has made up a right; no such right exists and Stephen’s last post re. negative/positive liberty is a good explanation of why that is the case.
Thanks for stopping by LR, Anonymous. Maybe next time we’ll get a name from you!
24 Anonymous // Jan 21, 2007 at 1:07 pm
The Libertarian Party’s definition:
!Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering — as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices.”
“The Libertarian Party is for all who don’t want to push other people around and don’t want to be pushed around themselves.”
The LP supports each article of the Bill of Rights.
“Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose
government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate
diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.”
25 Anonymous // Jan 21, 2007 at 1:22 pm
http://www.theadvocates.org/library/comparison-of-philosophies.html
Take a look at that link to a policy review document on LP’s website. Note the frequest concern with the limitation of other people’s rights.
No one has the RIGHT to a job in my company, even if they are well qualified; but everyone has the RIGHT not to have their freedoms limited unjustifiably. In other words you have a right (and a constitutional one at that) to be treated equally for the purposes of employment vis-a-vis personal characteristics irrelevant to a particular job.
26 Stephen // Jan 21, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Anonymous:
I agree with ever bit of that quote.
John put things well in his post - there are slightly different conceptions of libertarianism at work here - and much hangs on what I said earlier about the meaning of rights. Incidentally I think my version of libertarianism fits best with the definition given by the libertarian party.
SG
27 Anonymous // Jan 21, 2007 at 1:27 pm
It’s the other anonymous now - just pointing out a debate among libertarians here. It should be illegal for the government to discriminate on grounds of race, but not for private individuals and companies. The LP takes that view. But others within the part think all employees deserve equal protection, not just govt employees. Official stance:
“Libertarians want to see people of all types working in the most harmonious relationships. “Affirmative action” refers to laws which force people into relationships whether they want them or not. Not too many years ago, there were laws in many states which prevented people of different races from doing a variety of things together, working, eating, marriage, etc. Libertarians oppose all such laws because the people involved have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to enter a relationship or association.
An old saying states: “it takes two to tango.” Relationships or associations require at least two people. We cannot justify using force to keep people out of voluntary relationships and we cannot justify forcing private citizens into relationships against their will.
Government employment is a different case. The only criteria for employment or advancement in government work should be merit. The Constitution requires that we all be given equal treatment under the law. Since governments are created by law, they are Constitutionally required to be absolutely even handed. Private citizens or companies on the other hand have the right to be stupid and suffer the consequences.
Attempts to correct bigotry with affirmative action haven’t worked very well. Such laws are easy for bigots to circumvent and people tend to think minority employees did not earn their positions on merit even if they did. They also make it possible for bigots to harass minorities by demanding employment at minority owned businesses.”
28 Stephen // Jan 21, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Incidentally, there are two levels in the libertarian mind-set.
There is the principle level and the practical level.
At the principle level libertarians might oppose many things that they might tolerate at the practical level. For instance, although I’m a libertarian I am a realist. I accept that the government is going to take some potion of money from me. I would rather thay spent this on a health servioce than on, say, the arts. This doesn’t violate my libertarian principles. It simply means that society is very un-libertarian and that for some libertarian policies to come into force requires other steps to be in place first. It’s all step by step - some steps themselves are unlibertarian in and of themselves, but in the greater scheme of things they are heading in the right direction. I think that that helps explain some policies of libertarian groups and parties. They aren’t ideal policies from a libertarian point of view - but at the practical level, they’ll do for now until we can further prepare the ground for the next step.
Ummm…did that make any sense?
SG
I’d be interested in reading the book you wrote, anonymous. But, if you’re keeping it all top secret I guess I can’t…
29 Stephen // Jan 21, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Here’s a suggestion - rather than two anonymouses/anonymi can you pick screen names to make it easier?
SG
30 S Quinney // Jan 21, 2007 at 2:25 pm
So Anonymous 1’s claim that the LP supports his approach to this is incorrect. The LP actually supports Stephen’s (and mine and John’s) understanding. Actually, my first response would have been to say that the LP is not the final arbiter of what is or is not libertarian: they’re also playing the populatity game known as politics. And John has pointed out before that this blog is a ’small-L’ libertarian blog, not a ‘voting LP party line’ blog.
In any case, I think it’s clear that Anonymous 1 is understanding rights differently than Stephen, John, myself, and the Libertarian Party.
Perhaps since he didn’t answer before, he would be willing to answer directly now, and since he agrees that nobody has the RIGHT to work at a particular company: If a black person may not work at this company due to its racist policy, can he/she not work at the myriad of other companies which find such policies disgusting? (With his economic background he should know that a free market will make the existence of such companies inevitable.)
Interesting conversation, guys.
31 John Wright // Jan 21, 2007 at 2:46 pm
By the way, I should point out here that there is much in the Civil Rights Act that libertarians agree with. But the coercion of businesses by force with regard to their hiring policies is not an example.
32 Stephen // Jan 22, 2007 at 12:26 am
Interesting discussion indeed. I never thought this post would have lead to a debate between libertarians about libertarianism.
SG
33 DiceyWily // Jan 29, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Stephen,
Where does this law leave private clubs? e.g. Will it affect ‘men only’ golf clubs?
34 Stephen // Feb 1, 2007 at 10:20 am
This law won’t…as far as I know it only deals with sexual orientation.
SG
Leave a Comment