Your argument borders on the absurd. “I don’t trust the government to protect the rights of minorities so I am against supporting a government party that runs on the platform of protecting the rights of minorities”.
In fact, your argument is an excellent example of a bizarre (or perhaps Bizarro would be more accurate) line of thinking common to the right. That the only “freedoms” worth preserving are the rights of bigots to oppress minorities, for employers to treat their employees like serfs, for the super-wealthy to maintain control over the vast majority of economic assets and for the poor to live with their poor decision to not be born to middle-class family in an affluent suburb.
No. Libertarianism is anti-freedom. It would inevitably result in plutocracy or neo-feudalism of one variety or another.
And if you go farther back, there used to be entire towns that refused to serve black people in any way. There was even a reference book published for black people who traveled, to let them know where they could and could not go for food, gas, motels rooms and so on.
As has been said, this appears to be a matter of projection; of the Right projecting their own behavior on the “Left”*.
*Which is really just the moderates, such as they are.
OP should consider that, if Christians become the true minority, they will still be able to walk into a bakery run by dope-smoking hippie atheist queers and order a cake. With or without dong decorations.
[SIZE=“1”]“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”[/SIZE]
I like how the OP has essentially admitted that the only reason he’s become a libertarian is that it’s no longer politically feasible for him to discriminate.
Well, hey, he sees *ominous potential *in the air that one day groups might strip away people’s rights, so we’d better do it now to ensure it will never happen.
Has it dawned on you yet that every single example you’ve used so far has been incorrect – a misrepresentation of the actual reality?
Groups defined by race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual orientation should be protected by law as a foundational principle of non-discrimination. Alcoholics, bigots, and flat-earthers are not a protected group. The comparison is ludicrously irrational.
I see. So in your opinion it was the wonderful free market that ended slavery and ended segregation in the south – the federal government had nothing to do with it, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a fiction? Actually if you think about it for a second it was the wonderful free market that started slavery in the first place.
Libertarianism is a philosophically bankrupt fantasy that observes that it’s possible for bad laws to be enacted and for government to be abusive, and therefore simplistically concludes that the best answer must be no laws at all, except for almighty property rights. But lawless anarchy has never been the answer to anything, and my “freedom” as an individual or a business to persecute or discriminate against you because I don’t like your face looks a lot less like “freedom” when you’re on the receiving end. Only when arguing with libertarians does it seem necessary to point out that the rule of law is the basis for – not the enemy of – a free society, because only the rule of law is subject to enactment by democratically elected legislators and vetting by the courts. Private enterprise and individual lunatics doing whatever the hell they feel like has no such constraints.
One more thing. You like using the phrase “powers that be”. Sounds ominious, but what does it mean? In a society governed by law, it means the government of the people --** that’s us!** In a libertarian utopia, however, it would mean the tyranny of the most powerful self-interested enterprises and warlords.
We’ve discussed libertarianism before and I don’t really want to rehash it further, but it needed to be said because the two things central to your broken argument are a misrepresentation of the facts about the supposed but non-existent threat of anti-discrimination laws, and thinking that libertarianism is a solution.
Not unless cornopean is also opposed to capitalism, and seeks workers’ power, along with opposing all the other abusive hierarchies in the world: racism, sexism, heterosexism, transphobia, ableism, and so on and so forth.
As bad as a libertarian society would be, in my opinion, anarchy would be far worse. Somalia is occasionally brought about, tongue-in-cheek, as an ideal libertarian society – it’s not… but it does seem to be a rather anarchous society
The City of Houston demanded that all pastors, etc. hand over copies of their sermons concerning same-sex marriage, gay rights or anything to do with Mayor Parker.
As of today, however, they are “amending” that demand to be speeches, not sermons. Either way, they are wrong and I hope they get a hearty “up yours!” from all concerned.
Slight nit - syndicalist/socialist flavours of anarchism are not the only streams, there are streams that don’t really concern themselves with labour (not my stream, but still)
That might be a case of libertarian capitalism, for all the world to see, but it’s definitely not anarchism. Contrast with anarchist Catalonia/Spanish Revolution, the Ukraine Free Territory, Paris Commune, the Zapatistas, etc.
