It’s treated as a given because it is one of the premises of the belief system. There must be a government to enforce the rules that exist. It must have the ability to enforce those rules. I wouldn’t characterize this as having less power per se, just less areas that they are concerned with. In the areas under their purview, they would be as powerful or more so than they are today.
In addition, it is also taken as a given, and one of the items in the OP, that the government would be prohibited from discriminating in any way so yes that notion is pre-supposed and is one of the premises of this position.
Somewhat of a hijack but I could probably employ someone to work in my business that I avoid doing because of the onerous hiring practices in my state. I could defend my life and my family should the need arise. I would face a greatly reduced tax burden as the level of services provided would be substantially less.
Right - I didn’t want to get into too much of a hijack but at a high level I’m a proponent of much less regulation in the market. I think market distortions imposed by government are a net detriment to the economy. Examples as small as requiring a license to be a dog walker to various trade tariffs and such.
The courts would almost certainly intervene. Such a plan couldn’t work without coordination, and that coordination would, in itself, demonstrate the intent to deny civil rights.
The courts have already forced integration (or other reforms) of private clubs that engaged in commerce under the guise of private association.
It seems that the there is a basic assumption underlying the theory of Libertarianism that all members of the community are informed rational actors, acting in their personal best interest. In a world of such people there would be no need of anti discrimination laws since it is irrational to discriminate. In doing so, you would reduce your customer base, and there is no chance of gaining additional bigoted customers since it is irrational to use the fact that a business discriminates against others as a factor in determining whether to to business there.
Of course in the real world people don’t behave the way they do on paper, or else we could assume the perfect willing worker and communism would work. In our world bigots exist and discrimination can be a viable business strategy.
A rational actor doesn’t have to have all facts pertaining to choices–he merely has to act on belief. A bigoted owner could believe allowing minorities would drive away other customers.
Libertarianism doesn’t profess to solve all social ills, so I think it’s a bit disingenuous to expect it to. That’s more for Buck Godot, but just picking up from your post. You’ll notice that none of the libertarians in this thread are saying that there would be no discrimination. We just don’t think it would be as bad as others have proposed.
I really don’t see how you can logically come to this conclusion. With various laws in place, in many countries, explicitly prohibiting discrimination, there continues to be example after example of individuals as well as organizations practicing these proscribed actions. And yet, somehow, when these legal protections are removed, you don’t believe the problem will be “as bad as others have proposed”? How could it not get worse?
Somehow this discussion has devolved into a discussion the state of race relations during the 1700’s through the present day. That was certainly a part of Civil Rights at one time but, as I said earlier, it has little to do with libertarians because many, if not most of those issues were caused by government policies in the first place.
It is a little more interesting when you get into Civil Rights issues that confront everyone today. What about domestic NSA spying on innocent citizens that has been proven to occur now. That is strictly against libertarian philosophy. Most of the NSA should be be defunded and shut down yesterday. What about due process of law for citizens as well as non-citizens? How about Guantanamo Bay as well as drone strikes on sovereign territory and illegal immigration issues? You will get a slight mix of opinions among libertarians on those but I think that is a better way to further this part part of the discussion.
I wonder what folks here think about the Supreme Court striking down pre-clearance rules regarding state voting laws back in June of 2013. The Supreme Court basically adopted my hypothetical: that since discrimination is no longer evidenced in voting laws, the onus for government intervention no longer exists. That seems to me a very libertarian ruling.
It can “get worse” without getting “as bad as others have proposed”. None of us arguing the libertarian side has that it won’t “get worse”. We’re arguing that it’s not the government’s business to stamp out every and all social injustices, and that when the government itself stops discriminating, it’s near impossible for the type of systematic discrimination that we saw in the Jim Crow South to exist. That requires the collusion of the government.
This is something I have trouble understanding about conservatives- is it fair to consider you a conservative? Anyway, here is this thing that is less effective in the free market, and that is bad for the economy overall, and that we don’t approve of emotionally, morally, historically or legally, so… we must allow it. I just don’t get it.
Adopt a better worldview.
But more literally, I think the libertarian taxes thread will be a hit. I predict you’ll harvest a little spleen-venting before it’s over. It’ll be better than almost anything on TV.
Just one more word on my ‘comparative philosophy’ argument. ISTM that the Libertarian philosophy is of a tertiary quality at best. This alone should make us skeptics, but I don’t think everyone is sensitive to these distinctions, least of all libertarians. So that approach won’t work.
What if we look at who would be most welcoming of the freedom to discriminate through commerce? Would the KKK welcome this change? The Aryan Nation? The posters on Stormfront and Chimpout? White supremacists generally? I think so.
Why advocate a policy that seems to allow the bad guys to commit more crimes against the vulnerable innocent?
I think this is false, and one of the main issues of disagreement. Most of those issues were caused because, at the time, huge chunks of the American public (including large majorities of white people in various states and time periods) were white supremacists. The government they elected was also white supremacist. But the biggest problem (at the time) was not the government – it was the people.
Nobody expects it to cure social ills. In fact, it explicitly lacks the mechanisms to even begin to address some fundamental and obvious ones. It apparently does so because adamantly adhering to a nebulous principle is more important than the actual outcome. That’s moronic, and that’s the point.
Bingo. As Bone said upthread, the result doesn’t matter. I can’t support that. Freedom for freedom’s sake is rather pointless when the tradeoff is a functional society and general well-being.
Ah, but what kind of packaging will we find wrapped around the notion, “The burden for paying our $16 trillion debt needs to be shifted to the poor and middle class”? How will it be framed so that that isn’t what it’s really about? And- don’t say it too loudly, (I might learn something). I still don’t think John is a bad guy, I just don’t understand… Libertarianism I guess, so my mental image of it may be just a strawman, and one that insults libertarians at that. I look forward to it.
This is what I was talking about (the post above yours). I should not have said “all” social ills, but Libertarianism doesn’t claim to be able to eliminate discrimination. Libertarinism certainly makes erroneous assumptions about humans, but I don’t think it assumes what BG is saying it does, if I’m reading his post correctly. What Libertarianism does assume is that if someone wants to discriminate, he’s free to do so as long it involves his own property. He can’t make laws that discriminate, but he can choose his customers just like he can choose his vendors.
Are you essentially arguing that a Libertarian form of government would have been bad, in general, up until a certain, recent point in history due to virulent bigotry? But now, you’re saying that bigotry has been reduced to a point in which a Libertarian form of government would result in better outcomes for people and for freedom? Please correct me if I’m wrong.
If this is what you’re arguing, then I don’t believe that bigotry has been reduced to a small enough amount that, with a Libertarian society, we would not have the return of a small but signficant number of very negative things like sundown towns.
Not quite. I’m also saying (actually I’ve already said this at least twice in this thread) that systematic discrimination is very difficult to maintain without the collusion of government in that discrimination. Now, I can’t prove that, which is why I’ve been asking if there is any country that has something like the US’s Civil Rights Act but without Title II.
If the result matters more than the process, then you are able to engage in *any *process to get the desired result. I definitely don’t support that.
But I don’t think there are just those two extremes. Even with our constitution there are certain things we hold as outside the will of the majority (barring constitutional amendment). The old adage that two wolves and a sheep don’t get to vote on what’s for dinner. Libertarians pick a point on the spectrum that is much more slanted to one side, not a pure absolutist view but more in that direction towards individual liberty than others. And it’s not exactly that results don’t matter - though I phrased it similarly - it’s more than individual liberty itself is a result that is highly valued.
We currently have a lot of policies that allow bad guys to commit more crimes - the 5th and 4th amendment, rules of evidence, right to a lawyer, innocent until proven guilty, etc. All of these things result in bad guys being able to commit more crimes. Of course, there are other benefits as well and we have decided that they outweigh those negative outcomes. The idea that we allow bad outcomes to achieve something else is widely accepted. It’s just a question of where you draw the line.
I don’t remember the details of this one too much but I think I was in favor of the ruling. It’s consistent with the government getting out of the discrimination business.
There is a lot more areas that concern civil rights than just race and discrimination for sure. I’m completely against the NSA spying program, though I think there is a place for the agency itself. The way it has been operating is totally shitty though. I’m for much more permissive immigration, incredibly stronger 4th amendment protection, droning folks sucks as does foreign meddling, Guantanamo Bay has been executed very poorly and I’m not sure if it was a shitty idea in the first place.