Libertarianism and Moralism

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You make a good point that both liberals and conservatives (and those in between) want to enforce their moral values. They just disagree on what moral values should be enforced.

Which I think is the definition of moralism - it's when people want to enforce a moral value even on to the people who don't share that moral value.

Libertarians, broadly speaking, have the principle that it's wrong to force other people to live by your moral values or by the moral values of society in general. So in that sense there is a real divide between libertarianism and moralism.

A big problem is that many libertarians actually live by a principle that's more like "it's wrong to force other people to live by your moral values - except when it's a moral value I feel really strongly about."

Yes, hypocrisy knows no political boundaries.

To bring us back to Ron Paul, for example, he's strongly pro-life and would restrict abortions. It's hard to see this as anything other than him trying to enforce his moral values on other people, many of whom do not share those values. Paul argues (unconvincingly in my opinion) that his pro-life views are compatible with his libertarian views. I'd argue that his pro-life views are an exception to his libertarian views.

IANAL, but from talking to those who are, I think that is one issue that it's hard to get consensus on. Many Libertarians are pro-life and many are pro-choice. It all boils down, as it does for everyone, to when you think a human life begins.

Both major political parties have pro-choice and pro-life members, so I don't see it as any big deal that Libertarians do, too.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I do grasp the difference. It's been the point I've been making all along.

You say libertarians won't force other people to do some things. That's why I'm not a libertarian. I'm willing to use force to make other people do some things.

I thought I had made this clear: "That to me is the problem with Libertarianism. Libertarianism is willing to stand by while bad things are happening on the dubious principle that interfering with a bad thing is somehow worse than the bad thing itself."

But libertarians think that using force is a bad thing, and we aren't just standing by doing nothing, we are trying to stop that bad thing. So, sounds like libertarians are hero's in your analogy.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Both major political parties have pro-choice and pro-life members, so I don't see it as any big deal that Libertarians do, too.

It's the hypocrisy issue. Parties like the Democrats and the Republicans openly acknowledge that they legislate morality. So it's no hypocrisy for them to legislate on abortions.

But Libertarians are supposedly based on the principle of not legislating your morality on to other people. So they're open to accusations of hypocrisy when they legislate their moral values on abortion into law.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It's the hypocrisy issue. Parties like the Democrats and the Republicans openly acknowledge that they legislate morality. So it's no hypocrisy for them to legislate on abortions.

But Libertarians are supposedly based on the principle of not legislating your morality on to other people. So they're open to accusations of hypocrisy when they legislate their moral values on abortion into law.

Libertarian ideology is based on not initiating force. For people who consider abortion murder, abortion is definitely "initiating force". There is nothing hypocritical about that.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

But libertarians think that using force is a bad thing, and we aren't just standing by doing nothing, we are trying to stop that bad thing. So, sounds like libertarians are hero's in your analogy.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

You say that libertarians won't use force. But you also say that libertarians are trying to stop bad things. How? By asking people nicely to stop? Are you claiming Jimmy Carter as your role model now?

I said I support using force to make people stop doing really bad things. So why should my heroes be people who aren't willing to do that?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Terr

Libertarian ideology is based on not initiating force. For people who consider abortion murder, abortion is definitely "initiating force". There is nothing hypocritical about that.

And for people who don't consider abortion murder, abortion isn't initiating force. So the moral decision being forced on other people is the belief that abortion is murder. Not everyone shares that moral belief.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Libertarians, broadly speaking, have the principle that it's wrong to force other people to live by your moral values or by the moral values of society in general.

No; they have the principle that it's wrong for the government to force moral values on people. They've no problems with non-government organizations or individuals forcing people to do what they want, and they do consider it a legitimate government function to crack down on any of the common people who raise their hands against their "betters". The function of the police in a libertarian society is to keep the lower classes properly submissive to their masters.

They make speeches about "not initiating force", true - but that's that's because they've removed all recourse for the common people but force.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It's the hypocrisy issue. Parties like the Democrats and the Republicans openly acknowledge that they legislate morality. So it's no hypocrisy for them to legislate on abortions.

But Libertarians are supposedly based on the principle of not legislating your morality on to other people. So they're open to accusations of hypocrisy when they legislate their moral values on abortion into law.

Semantics. "Non-coercion" is a statement about morality. You're getting hung on the descriptive vs normative definition of the term "morality".

I don't know about Republicans, but when Democrats say they don't legislate morality (and they most certainly do say this), they are talking about descriptive morality. Your personal moral code. But both Democrats and Libertarians legislate normative morality. It's just that Libertarians have a smaller set of what constitutes their normative morality than Democrats do.

A Democrat will say that racial discrimination in the workplace is objectively wrong. He will also say that murder, theft, fraud and rape are objectively wrong.

A Libertarian will agree with the 2nd sentence but not the first.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

No; they have the principle that it's wrong for the government to force moral values on people. They've no problems with non-government organizations or individuals forcing people to do what they want, and they do consider it a legitimate government function to crack down on any of the common people who raise their hands against their "betters". The function of the police in a libertarian society is to keep the lower classes properly submissive to their masters.

They make speeches about "not initiating force", true - but that's that's because they've removed all recourse for the common people but force.

Nope.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

You say that libertarians won't use force. But you also say that libertarians are trying to stop bad things. How? By asking people nicely to stop? Are you claiming Jimmy Carter as your role model now?

I said I support using force to make people stop doing really bad things. So why should my heroes be people who aren't willing to do that?

What you are missing is that a "bad thing" is in the eye of the beholder. By trying to stop people from forcing others to do things, I'm trying to stop bad things from happening. So, I'm not like the guy who walks by and sees bad things and does nothing, I'm trying to stop the bad things (ie, the use of force to get others to do what you want them to do).

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Nope.

My, that's eloquent.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

What you are missing is that a "bad thing" is in the eye of the beholder. By trying to stop people from forcing others to do things, I'm trying to stop bad things from happening. So, I'm not like the guy who walks by and sees bad things and does nothing, I'm trying to stop the bad things (ie, the use of force to get others to do what you want them to do).

So you're saying the only possible bad thing in the world is forcing somebody to do something they don't want to do?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

No; they have the principle that it's wrong for the government to force moral values on people.

Not really. An injunction on murder is a moral value forced on other people.

They've no problems with non-government organizations or individuals forcing people to do what they want,

Uh, that's the exact opposite of what Libertarianism is.

and they do consider it a legitimate government function to crack down on any of the common people who raise their hands against their "betters". The function of the police in a libertarian society is to keep the lower classes properly submissive to their masters.

They make speeches about "not initiating force", true - but that's that's because they've removed all recourse for the common people but force.

Not a single word of that is correct.

The only thing that post has going for it is that you didn't mention Somalia.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Semantics. "Non-coercion" is a statement about morality. You're getting hung on the descriptive vs normative definition of the term "morality".

I don't know about Republicans, but when Democrats say they don't legislate morality (and they most certainly do say this), they are talking about descriptive morality. Your personal moral code. But both Democrats and Libertarians legislate normative morality. It's just that Libertarians have a smaller set of what constitutes their normative morality than Democrats do.

A Democrat will say that racial discrimination in the workplace is objectively wrong. He will also say that murder, theft, fraud and rape are objectively wrong.

A Libertarian will agree with the 2nd sentence but not the first.

I don't want to argue about objective and subjective morality unless you can show that there actually is such a thing as objective morality.

To use your examples, what standard would a libertarian use to establish that that murder, theft, fraud, and rape are objectively immoral but racial discrimination is (presumably) only subjectively immoral? How did the libertarian know what morality was objective and what was subjective?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

So you're saying the only possible bad thing in the world is forcing somebody to do something they don't want to do?

Libertarianism/Randism is basically the ideological equivalent of psychopathy, so "we want to do whatever we want without regard for the consequences" is a central feature of the ideology, right along with "we don't owe anybody anything".

Originally Posted by John Mace

Uh, that's the exact opposite of what Libertarianism is.

Nonsense; they object to the government doing anything to stop the powerful from forcing everyone else to do as they demand.

Originally Posted by John Mace

Not a single word of that is correct.

No, it's all correct. Libertarianism is about handing unlimited power to the wealthy and reducing the government to a tool to keep the common people from rebelling. It's anarchy for the rich; "anarchists who want police protection from their slaves".

Originally Posted by John Mace

The only thing that post has going for it is that you didn't mention Somalia.

So? I've heard libertarians praise Somalia as being superior to the US due to its lack of government.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I don't want to argue about objective and subjective morality unless you can show that there actually is such a thing as objective morality.

Call it "normative" then. I should not have switched terms in the same post. But you need to realize that there are two uses of the term, and you are conflating them.

To use your examples, what standard would a libertarian use to establish that that murder, theft, fraud, and rape are objectively immoral but racial discrimination is (presumably) only subjectively immoral? How did the libertarian know what morality was objective and what was subjective?

The same way other philosophies do. Libertarians think that the only normative morals to be enforced by the state are coercive acts by one person on another. This derives from the postulate that freedom is an end in itself, and needs no justification of qualification.

Ultimately, all political philosophies deal with normative morality.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Nonsense; they object to the government doing anything to stop the powerful from forcing everyone else to do as they demand.

Nope.

No, it's all correct. Libertarianism is about handing unlimited power to the wealthy and reducing the government to a tool to keep the common people from rebelling. It's anarchy for the rich; "anarchists who want police protection from their slaves".

Nope

So? I've heard libertarians praise Somalia as being superior to the US due to its lack of government.

Cite that this is anything even remotely mainstream in the Libertarian Party?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Nope.


Nope

More eloquence from the defenders of sociopathylibertarianism

Originally Posted by John Mace

Cite that this is anything even remotely mainstream in the Libertarian Party?

I have no idea if it is or not; you were the one who brought up Somalia anyway. And it's funny that you don't even try to make an argument against me, just saying "nope" and then start demanding cites from me.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

And for people who don't consider abortion murder, abortion isn't initiating force. So the moral decision being forced on other people is the belief that abortion is murder. Not everyone shares that moral belief.

That belief is not "moral".

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

More eloquence from the defenders of sociopathylibertarianism

I have no idea if it is or not; you were the one who brought up Somalia anyway. And it's funny that you don't even try to make an argument against me, just saying "nope" and then start demanding cites from me.

No sense in arguing against garbage posts. You need to bring some cites in to support your so-called arguments. As it is, they are just uninformed opinions. Those can be dismissed out of hand.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by John Mace

No sense in arguing against garbage posts.

Ah, the old "you aren't worthy" dodge". The Right on this board seems to like it for some reason.

Originally Posted by John Mace

You need to bring some cites in to support your so-called arguments. As it is, they are just uninformed opinions. Those can be dismissed out of hand.

Of course I could say the same about your posts on the subject. Where are your cites? What in fact would even qualify as a "cite" about a never actually officially implemented political philosophy? Am I supposed to just take all their claims at face value like you appear to be doing? I've never seen anyone produce a cite on the bad effects of attempts to impose libertarianism without the defenders of libertarianism instantly dismissing it as not real libertarianism.

[Rand Rover]

Der tribe, a simple Nope is all that is necessary to respond to your posts. You never make an argument, you just make assertions based on your views of other people's motives. A counter-asserfion is all that is needed to negate a bare assertion. Staff actually making arguments for your positions and you'll get more than a nopekn return.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

So you're saying the only possible bad thing in the world is forcing somebody to do something they don't want to do?

No. I'm just saying it is one bad thing that I am stopping. You are actively encouraging it, which is arguably worse than simply doing nothing to stop it.

[John Mace]

[quote=Der Trihs;14816572]Ah, the old "you aren't worthy" dodge". The Right on this board seems to like it for some reason.[/qoute]
Nope. Never said anything about you, personally. And you can save your comments about "The Right" for those who are on "The Right".

Of course I could say the same about your posts on the subject. Where are your cites? What in fact would even qualify as a "cite" about a never actually officially implemented political philosophy? Am I supposed to just take all their claims at face value like you appear to be doing?

No, but you are simply making stuff up about what Libertarians believe. Let's look at your first statement in that post:

.. they object to the government doing anything to stop the powerful from forcing everyone else to do as they demand.

That is simply not true, and no reading of the Libertarian Platform can reasonably come to that conclusion. If you think it can, then quote the part that supports your claim.

I've never seen anyone produce a cite on the bad effects of attempts to impose libertarianism without the defenders of libertarianism instantly dismissing it as not real libertarianism.

Well, it depends on your definition of "bad". I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, but I sympathize with many of their goals and I've admitted in this very thread that some people will be discriminated against in the workplace in Libertaria. They will be discriminated against because of their sex, their race and/or their sexual orientation.

Lots of "bad" things will happen in Libertaria. Just as lots of "bad" things happen in every country. I don't know of any political philosophy which claims it will prevent all "bad" things from happening.

[The Bith Shuffle]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I think people misconceive what Libertarianism is. Most people not of the socially conservative stripe talk about not legislating morality. Just look at the OP. Who still, btw, has not defined what "moralism" is. Libertarians are no more likely to "pat themselves on the back" about this than are social liberals. I think that they, like social liberals, will commonly use "morality" in a narrower, colloquial sense. We hear it from social liberals all the time: Don't legislate morality.

Okay, you're right that social liberals do that too. And social liberals are confused when they talk like that as well. Moral beliefs are moral beliefs. If there's a problem with banning contraceptives, it certainly isn't that it's "legislating morality." Laws against murder also "legislate morality." So do laws against rape.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Der tribe, a simple Nope is all that is necessary to respond to your posts.

Only if you want to implicitly admit the baselessness of your positions.

Originally Posted by John Mace

That is simply not true, and no reading of the Libertarian Platform can reasonably come to that conclusion.

In other words yes, we are supposed to just take their claims at face value.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Only if you want to implicitly admit the baselessness of your positions.

No, only if I want to explicitly show the baselessness of your assertions.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

In other words yes, we are supposed to just take their claims at face value.

I noticed you conveniently left off the sentence where I invited you to quote from the LP's platform to support your claims. I guess we can assume you are unable to do that.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Nonsense. You are assuming that every corporation would believe every other corporation regarding the merits of a person placed on a blacklist. But it wouldn't work that way. Some corporations would put good employees on the blacklist so that they wouldn't be hired by competitors, and the fact that the competitors would realize this renders a blacklist useless on the first place. You are too caught up in trying to portray corporations and lkbertarians as evil to see this simple flaw in tour scenario.

Please explain the absence of large numbers of female doctors and lawyers in the more libertarian '50s and '60s, before sex discrimination laws. Did women all of a sudden get the ability to do medicine and law? Government then certainly did not prevent women from taking these jobs, but let employers basically blacklist women. Clearly lots of the women they banned would have made good employees. How come the market didn't work there?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Certain types of racial discrimination are illegal in the US and certain types would be illegal in Libertaria. We're just talking about where to draw the line. In the US, I can open a private club and refuse to allow anyone of the Nemoid race to join. What I can't do is open a public facility and do so. In both the US and Libertaria, the government is not allowed to discriminate.

There are private clubs and private clubs. There are real private clubs, limited to a small number of people. Then there is the private club I joined in Salt Lake City (dues, $1) in order to drink at a martini bar. Or the private club I used to be registered at automatically at my hotel in Oklahoma City so I could drink at their bar (which I never did.)

Those clubs increased freedom. Would you support a similar private club, in a restaurant say off a main street, whose purpose was to exclude somebody being legal in Libertaria?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I noticed you conveniently left off the sentence where I invited you to quote from the LP's platform to support your claims. I guess we can assume you are unable to do that.

I've repeatedly made the point that I don't trust or believe them. So what's the point of going through a document I consider to have been written by liars for something I wouldn't expect to be there in the first place? Since when have political groups been trustworthy?

[emacknight]

I think a better analogy would be to look at Plan B contraceptives. Right now there are pharmacies(ists) that are morally against its use, so they refuse to sell it. To me, that's morals in the free market. There are a lot of people that are upset by this, and want to have the government force pharmacies to provide. There are also a lot of people that are happy about this, and want the government to prevent all pharmacies from providing it.

So what we have are three scenarios:

[1] Government forces pharmacies to provide Plan B
[2] Free market where a pharmacy can choose to offer it or not to offer it.
[3] Government prevents pharmacies from selling it.

Both scenario [1] and [3] represent the government forcing morals on society. And it's simply a matter of which side of the political isle you are on as to which you agree with. The Dems want [1] and the Republicans want [3]. Each group sees themselves as morally superior because of their belief.

A libertarian system is supposed to strive for [2]. And we all know that in the real world that means that {gasp} some pharmacies are going to refuse to sell Plan B. That could have just as easily been Little Nemo's cause de jour, since it is entirely possible that places like South Dakota wouldn't have Plan B available. To a liberal, that's morally wrong, something should be done, and it should be done by the government through use of force.

But then, a conservative would be just has unhappy, knowing that some pharmacies would sell it. Hell, they might even give it away free just to draw in that coveted 16-18 year old whore market (I kid). Conservatives see abortifacient drugs as morally wrong, and want the government to use force to prevent it from being sold.

It's in this way that both parties are simply different sides of the same coin, each taking turns legislating as much morality as they can in the 4 year window they get. The CRA meant government forcing businesses to serve blacks. But it wasn't long before that that the government was forcing segregation of schools. In the middle is a free market that would allow both schools and businesses to either segregate or desegregate as much as they wanted.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

No. I'm just saying it is one bad thing that I am stopping. You are actively encouraging it, which is arguably worse than simply doing nothing to stop it.

Okay, would you say that you believe forcing somebody to do something they don't want to do is the primary bad thing?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Terr

That belief is not "moral".

Same question I asked John. What objective standard do you use to decide what is moral and what is not?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by emacknight

It's in this way that both parties are simply different sides of the same coin, each taking turns legislating as much morality as they can in the 4 year window they get. The CRA meant government forcing businesses to serve blacks. But it wasn't long before that that the government was forcing segregation of schools. In the middle is a free market that would allow both schools and businesses to either segregate or desegregate as much as they wanted.

It's not "in the middle". It's strongly right wing, because the kind of people in a position to do things like that are mostly right wing. That's a major reason why it's the right wing that's libertarian.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by John Mace

The same way other philosophies do. Libertarians think that the only normative morals to be enforced by the state are coercive acts by one person on another. This derives from the postulate that freedom is an end in itself, and needs no justification of qualification.

You define fraud as coercive? Seems more like deceitful to me.

And you define racial discrimination (of the type I've mentioned) as non-coercive? Do you feel that when a black person is told he can't sit down at a restaurant, he is agreeing to this policy? Seems to me the restaurant owner is forcing his opinion on to the customer.

I also have a hard time seeing "freedom" used as the justification for a policy of telling people there are places they can't go. Racial discrimination is about restricting freedom.

The obvious counter-argument is that telling the restaurant owner that he has to accept black customers would be restricting his freedom. I understand this argument. But tell me where the objective morality is in saying that black people don't deserve as much freedom as business owners?

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

It's not "in the middle". It's strongly right wing, because the kind of people in a position to do things like that are mostly right wing. That's a major reason why it's the right wing that's libertarian.

Really? Right now the government prevents the sale of marijuana. Is it the right wing or the liberal left that wants it decriminalized?

The government currently prevents same sex marriage. Is it the right or the left that wants to allow it?

Both parties want to force their moral agenda on society. And both parties want libertarianism when it means getting rid of the other guy's moral laws.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You define fraud as coercive? Seems more like deceitful to me.

And you define racial discrimination (of the type I've mentioned) as non-coercive? Do you feel that when a black person is told he can't sit down at a restaurant, he is agreeing to this policy? Seems to me the restaurant owner is forcing his opinion on to the customer.

I also have a hard time seeing "freedom" used as the justification for a policy of telling people there are places they can't go. Racial discrimination is about restricting freedom.

The obvious counter-argument is that telling the restaurant owner that he has to accept black customers would be restricting his freedom. I understand this argument. But tell me where the objective morality is in saying that black people don't deserve as much freedom as business owners?

Then framet the issue in terms of freedom instead of pussyfooting around and bitching about racism. It's entirely possible that businesses will lose freedom as a result. A mall might make itself white-only meaning any business within it is then forced to white-only or move to another mall.

I personally see smoking bans in the same light. To me, businesses weren't free to be smoke-free.

Any issue can be debated on the inherent freedom that results. As shown above, abortion can either represent freedom for the mother to choose, or freedom for the fetus to live. A libertarian society wouldn't be without political parties or heated debates.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Same question I asked John. What objective standard do you use to decide what is moral and what is not?

"Moral" is subject to interpretation or opinion. There is no sane opinion or interpretation that can hold that murdering an innocent human being who is no danger to anyone is right or should be allowed.

Now whether the fetus is a human being or whether the fetus is innocent is a matter of opinion and different people have different opinions on it. But it has nothing to do with "moral".

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by emacknight

Really? Right now the government prevents the sale of marijuana. Is it the right wing or the liberal left that wants it decriminalized?

The government currently prevents same sex marriage. Is it the right or the left that wants to allow it?

Irrelevant, libertarianism wouldn't help those causes; it would just mean that corporations and churches would step in as the enforcers, and they'd be even more intrusive than government is now. Smoke marijuana or marry another man? Get fired, blacklisted, and starve to death as an example to the rest.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You define fraud as coercive? Seems more like deceitful to me.

The issue of fraud in Libertarian thought is pretty complex, and beyond what I really want to spend time on in this thread. If you're not satisfied that fraud is a form of coercion, feel free to drop it from the Libertarian lexicon.

And you define racial discrimination (of the type I've mentioned) as non-coercive? Do you feel that when a black person is told he can't sit down at a restaurant, he is agreeing to this policy? Seems to me the restaurant owner is forcing his opinion on to the customer.

Only inside the restaurant owner's property. Just like you could refuse to seat a black person at your dinner table inside your own house. No one has an unrestricted right to enter another person's property. Libertarian thought begins with the primacy of freedom, and property rights derive from that. You are not free to do whatever you wish with someone else's property. You are free to do what you wish with yours.

I also have a hard time seeing "freedom" used as the justification for a policy of telling people there are places they can't go. Racial discrimination is about restricting freedom.

See above. Do you have a problem with the current situation in the US where I can refuse to invite white people into my home? Libertarians consider your business to be in the same category as your home-- it's your property.

The obvious counter-argument is that telling the restaurant owner that he has to accept black customers would be restricting his freedom. I understand this argument. But tell me where the objective morality is in saying that black people don't deserve as much freedom as business owners?

Again, "objective" was probably a poor choice of words on my part. Use "normative" instead.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

And you define racial discrimination (of the type I've mentioned) as non-coercive? Do you feel that when a black person is told he can't sit down at a restaurant, he is agreeing to this policy?

No, that black person is agreeing that the restaurant is private property and the property owner can decide whom he accepts or does not accept on it.

I also have a hard time seeing "freedom" used as the justification for a policy of telling people there are places they can't go.

Then you would have no objection to me camping out in your living room for a few months. I'll bring a couple of dozen friends. We'll have fun.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Only inside the restaurant owner's property. Just like you could refuse to seat a black person at your dinner table inside your own house. No one has an unrestricted right to enter another person's property. Libertarian thought begins with the primacy of freedom, and property rights derive from that.

Garbage; as you are demonstrating it only believes in freedom for the privileged. If the "elite" wants to get together and persecute a less powerful group, the less powerful group is just supposed to take it. Segregation and privilege isn't freedom.

[andros]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Smoke marijuana or marry another man? Get fired, blacklisted, and starve to death as an example to the rest.

Well, no. In Libertaria you find another gig somewhere that is just fine with pot or hot, hot man-love. The assumption is that such places will continue to exist. I'm not sure why you think they wouldn't.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Garbage; as you are demonstrating it only believes in freedom for the privileged. If the "elite" wants to get together and persecute a less powerful group, the less powerful group is just supposed to take it. Segregation and privilege isn't freedom.

Of course. Cuz only the "privileged" own property.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Irrelevant, libertarianism wouldn't help those causes; it would just mean that corporations and churches would step in as the enforcers, and they'd be even more intrusive than government is now. Smoke marijuana or marry another man? Get fired, blacklisted, and starve to death as an example to the rest.

How do you not realize that's demonstrably false? The real world, if you bothered to look, has already proved you wrong.

Without laws enacted, some pharmacies offer Plan B, some don't. Frankly, that's the best example to disprove what you wrote. The Catholic Church is powerless against Big Pharma when there is money to be made selling pills.

Right now some companies offer benefits to same sex couples, some don't. Some companies have drug screenings, some don't.

JC Penny just made Ellen DeGeneres their spokes-lesbian. Hardly an endorsement of the sort of hysteria you would have us believe.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by andros

Well, no. In Libertaria you find another gig somewhere that is just fine with pot or hot, hot man-love. The assumption is that such places will continue to exist. I'm not sure why you think they wouldn't.

Because like all freedom they only exist because of government force. In Libertaria, businesses will become overwhelmingly monopolistic and instruments of tyrannical social control, because the government won't stop them from doing so. And they'll have blacklists of "undesirables" that they'll all honor because doing so is in their mutual interest.

And realistically, you won't even get the violence free version of Libertaria they say they want; history shows that. Realistically, the companies in such a society would make a point of killing people who defy them, just as they did in the old days here and still do overseas when they can get away with it.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Garbage; as you are demonstrating it only believes in freedom for the privileged..

Please quote the specific part of my post which references "the privileged". Hint: you won't be able to because you just made that part up.

Because like all freedom they only exist because of government force. In Libertaria, businesses will become overwhelmingly monopolistic and instruments of tyrannical social control, because the government won't stop them from doing so. And they'll have blacklists of "undesirables" that they'll all honor because doing so is in their mutual interest.

Well, that didn't exist prior to the Civil Rights Act, so this is something else you're just making up.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Because like all freedom they only exist because of government force. In Libertaria, businesses will become overwhelmingly monopolistic and instruments of tyrannical social control, because the government won't stop them from doing so. And they'll have blacklists of "undesirables" that they'll all honor because doing so is in their mutual interest.

And realistically, you won't even get the violence free version of Libertaria they say they want; history shows that. Realistically, the companies in such a society would make a point of killing people who defy them, just as they did in the old days here and still do overseas when they can get away with it.

Just like with the Plan B example, some businesses will offer it, some won't. It is entirely possible that market forces will mean an entire state won't have it. And it's entirely possible that market forces will cause every pharmacy to carry it.

ETA Are you unaware of boycotts by consumers and their impact on businesses? If enough people decided to boycott Walgreens because of Plan B, Walgreens would stop offering it.

Both of those extremes represent either side of the political spectrum. One party wants to force business to provide it, the other wants to prevent business from providing it.

You have the adorable ability to believe government will act in your best interest, while thinking businesses will only act against you. And what you refuse to accept is that the government can and has been far worse than any of the fantasies you concoct about libertarianism. Right now there majority groups happily using the government to subjugate a minority group. The simply reality is that you can't have scenario [1] without also allowing for scenario [3].

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Only inside the restaurant owner's property. Just like you could refuse to seat a black person at your dinner table inside your own house. No one has an unrestricted right to enter another person's property. Libertarian thought begins with the primacy of freedom, and property rights derive from that. You are not free to do whatever you wish with someone else's property. You are free to do what you wish with yours.

If you were running a B&B you couldn't.
You are mixing two forms of private property. Private property where people are allowed in by invitation is the type you are describing. But private - in the sense of owned by someone other than the government - which invites people in as a matter of business is not the same thing. If you have a private car you can only give rides to people you want to. If you own the Running Dog bus company, you should let anyone on who pays and isn't a safety risk.
if you don't want to play by those rules in offering public accommodation - you are free to get in a line of work where you can be a bigot to your heart's content.

Add to the fact that actual harm is done to those discriminated against by restricting choice, where no real harm is done to the owner of a public accommodation except being prevented from discriminating.