Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
He hasn’t moved the goal post around. He’s given various hypotheticals in defense of a consistent position: People shouldn’t be forced by the government to do things they don’t believe in. People are up in arms because he’s putting economic liberty in front of social reform to prevent discrimination. The Libertarian position is that if you’re not actively trespassing on others the government should not intervene.
My thoughts:
Even if you take the position that eliminating discrimination is more important than the liberty to run your own business as you see fit everyone should be able to see there’s a social cost either way. The government enforces laws by force. As an anarchist, I want the government to exert no force but less force is better than more force. That’s why I have some sympathy for Merit’s position. I also have issues with it but I see where he’s coming from.
Let me give what I think is a fair equivalency. Let’s say I’m, not surprisingly, a free speech absolutist.
In today’s world, walking around with a sign that advocates genocide against African Americans would be offensive but I support your right to say it.
100 years ago it would have been more offensive to most people to advocate for interracial gay sex. A free speech absolutist would have supported your right to say that as well. It’s not about the position but the right to speak freely.
It’s not exactly the same but the Libertarian perspective of no or very limited workplace interference is also a position that can be rooted in a desire for maximum freedom not as a means to support discrimination. Discrimination, like hate speech, is an unfortunate side effect in a world that isn’t perfect.
Now, I’m not a Libertarian because I don’t believe in private property and money. None-the-less I think you’re unfairly maligning the philosophy.
|
While I'm trying to keep it generally constructive, I malign Merit's opinions because he's a ridiculous incarnation of libertarianism, much like I've argued with ridiculous arguments from liberals on here who I've agreed with to an extent.
As far as your comment I thought it was well written and agree to an extent. Would you say that in the modern day that businesses more closely represent governments than individuals? I would. That's why I'm more comfortable with putting limitations on how they can operate in terms of how they treat their customers: because they're put in a position of power and any chance to abuse that will be sprung on. That's all within reason though because too much regulation can choke out everybody except for corporations, but this isn't one of those cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
That’s too bad, because drawing a line at real aggression is a cornerstone to personal freedom.
|
Like I said, it's a good place to start but it's not absolute.