View Single Post
Old 01-02-2018, 07:48 PM   #9326 (permalink)
Frownland
The Grammer King
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atop of the Throne
Posts: 29,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk View Post
He hasnít moved the goal post around. Heís given various hypotheticals in defense of a consistent position: People shouldnít be forced by the government to do things they donít believe in. People are up in arms because heís putting economic liberty in front of social reform to prevent discrimination. The Libertarian position is that if youíre 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 thereís 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. Thatís why I have some sympathy for Meritís position. I also have issues with it but I see where heís coming from.

Let me give what I think is a fair equivalency. Letís say Iím, not surprisingly, a free speech absolutist.

In todayís 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. Itís not about the position but the right to speak freely.

Itís 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 isnít perfect.

Now, Iím not a Libertarian because I donít believe in private property and money. None-the-less I think youíre 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 View Post
Thatís 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.
Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote