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?
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.
Okay, would you say that you believe forcing somebody to do something they don’t want to do is the primary bad thing?
Same question I asked John. What objective standard do you use to decide what is moral and what is not?
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again, “objective” was probably a poor choice of words on my part. Use “normative” instead.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course. Cuz only the “privileged” own property.
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.
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.
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.
Well, that didn’t exist prior to the Civil Rights Act, so this is something else you’re just making up.
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].
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.