What Kind of Libertarian Are You?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
<<< Fair enough.
Can I think of a public accommodation by which I may exercise my private biases?
Yes. I do not have to treat every patient that comes my way. For example, I do not have to attend a dirtbag covered in Nazi swastika tattoos.
But ethics, and sometimes the law to which I am subject, determine otherwise. I must find alternative care for the asshole; in an emergency, I must provide care and pass on the obligation only when the patient is stable.

Now you may see my point. “Property rights,” as defined by the matereialist–the property here being my practice of medicine–do not have absolute primacy. They are claimed by me, but only in recognition of the public compromises.

That is descriptive. Now you tell me: is that how it should be?
If you are a material libertarian, the answer is no; I should not be forced by any compromise, however voluntary, to treat assholes.

Now Tribulus, I know you are no asshole, but were you of another minority, should you not claim rights that are to be respected along with, or in contention to, “property rights?” Or do you have no rights whatsoever, except those subject to another’s property rights?[/quote]
Alright, ya muddied up the waters here. The conversation Fightingirish and Orion were alluding to, as well as the frame from Lifty’s cartoon were not dealing with the practice of medicine wherein life, limb or permanent disability were hanging in the balance. I am no doctor so correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I know life, limb or long term well being are not generally imperiled, at least not immediately, in actually private practice anyway. That is usually handled at hospitals. (I just know you’re gonna come back to medicine with this, Probably along the lines of follow up care, rehab, private hospitals etc. I’ll deal with that when the time comes).

The context was social. Restaurants, clubs, stores, hair salons etc. My contention was that if Louis Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright wish to run a business with their own money that denies service to white people, I would find it unfortunate, but would defend their right to do so. If some neo nazi covered in swastika tattoos doesn’t wants blacks in his party store, I wouldn’t go there and I hope few enough others would as well to effectively bankrupt his business, but I do not want big brother forcing him to be nice because the room behind that door is far too large.

Also, as I said in my first post, the result of such coerced “enlightenment” may be the bare form of justice, but in both cases it serves only to reinforce the racial hatred. What’s the point anyway? Is a black man going to finance a known nazi establishment by his patronage because the proprietor is legally forced to allow him to?

We would be miles further down the road to racial harmony, which is my heartfelt longing, without all this government arm twisting.

82

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Of course, this argument that justifies the practice of racism >>>[/quote] You are in my view one of the sharpest people in this forum and a man whose education clearly exceeds my own by light years. It is therefore with respect and regret that I must say I believe you are committing a non sequitur with this statement. The mere permission of the practice of racism in a private concern does not equate to justification. Neither is passive rejection tantamount to active violence or enslavement. No person on this site has a more comprehensive or consistent history of the abhorrence of racism than myself. However, it is a dangerous and slippery slope to begin dictating at the point of a statute what clientele a privately held “accommodation” MUST entertain.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< So, FI, you are absolutely correct, this self-designated “philosophy” IS stupid, especially were it assigns primacy to supposed “property rights” in preference to…justice. [/quote]In my opinion you have this backwards. When private property rights are made subservient to coerced acceptance of anyone by anyone else, of any race by any other, the resulting bare appearance of justice is far outweighed by the actual denial of individual sovereignty which places both sides in peril of further future restriction.
[/quote]

You are too kind.

Some of what you say is normative–things as they should be, perhaps. I will stick to the descriptive–things as they are.

You will note that I forethought your objection: the racist is free to be a racist in his own hovel. If the “public accommodation” is held privately, it is nevertheless practicing a public function. Would it be just for a state to force it to practice racism? Of course not.

While you protest that the owner can practice his racism publicly, the “settled law” holds otherwise. In this particular instance, there is no “right”–not property rights, not shouting “fire” in a theater, etc.–which transcend the exercise of justice. You choose the word “sovereignty,” and I will remind you that in the US, it is the law which is sovereign.[/quote]
Oh I’m well aware of what settled law holds. Creative legal precedent over constitutional intent is a significant component in everything that’s gone wrong with this nation. Justice in this country, despite uneven early application, was intended to be limited to equal access to the redress of objectively quantifiable grievances, not social engineering. Making reprehensible, but non criminal injustice criminal, accomplishes the opposite of what it intends as is everywhere evinced by the state of race relations still prevalent here.

Let me ask you this before going any further. In your view can there be no case in which a privately held public accommodation is legally permitted to intentionally exclude anybody because of who or what they are? You will immediately recognize this as a loaded question so there’s no point in hiding it. It will also probably lead you into a more precise definition of “public”. It is still an honest question loaded thought it is.[/quote]

Furthermore these institutions are not “public accomodations” because the owner has made it very clear that he does not intend to be open to the public, because he exlcudes parts of the public maybe even the majority of it.

The problem is that Dr Sceptix believes that they should be open to the public by declaring them to be “public institutions” when they were never intended to be ones.

His conclusions are already in the premises, it is a circular argument and the premise is as normative as the premise of libertarian doctrine.

84

[quote]Chushin wrote:
<<< Tirib, do you really think the Old South would have changed without any “arm-twisting” by the government? [/quote]
In short, over the same period of time? Yes, but I think that’s the wrong way to ask the question. I have a water emergency in my basement so I can’t say more now.

85

[quote]Sloth wrote:

When a man makes use of his private property in such a way as to bring harm to society (others), that’s when society must have it’s say. Be it pollution, sex on the front lawn, or widespread segregation.

Private associations should be protected to a large degree. However, when arrangments are fashioned in such a way as to basically create two different Americas, something needed doing. [/quote]

Yes, yes, unequivocably yes.

Private property rights have always - to an extent - yielded to important public interests higher than an individual right to “do whatever I want, whenever I want, with muh private property”.

In the instant debate, two principles are at stake:

  1. The “right” to discriminate

  2. The “right” not to be discriminated against

One involves a domgatic adherence to an academic principle based on nothing but the shifting sands of moral relativism, and the other is based on a society’s decision to quash a social evil by strangling it at the roots.

Our “lib-uhh-turr-ee-ans” get the concept of private property exactly backwards - private property is our servant, not our master. Liberarians exist to serve the great god “The Market” - they prostrate before it and are as dogmatic and unyielding in their blind devotion to materlialist principles as any evangelical. No matter how unjust the outcome of a “market” or “use of private property”, we must not question Its wisdom, for it has wisdom beyond us mortals.

It’s baloney, and the Enlightenment liberals had none of this poppycock in mind when discussing liberty and property rights.

Some things society simply won’t tolerate in the name of civilization - racial discrimination, with its roots in chattel slavery, is one of them. And, this needs to be shouted from the rooftops - there is absolutely, positively nothing “conservative” about the rank moral relativism that underpins this libertarian version of property rights. If you find yourself agreeing with it, and you call yourself a “conservative”, relinquish the title and go slouching back to the fever swamps of left-wing radicalism where you belong.

86

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Of course, this argument that justifies the practice of racism >>>[/quote] You are in my view one of the sharpest people in this forum and a man whose education clearly exceeds my own by light years. It is therefore with respect and regret that I must say I believe you are committing a non sequitur with this statement. The mere permission of the practice of racism in a private concern does not equate to justification. Neither is passive rejection tantamount to active violence or enslavement. No person on this site has a more comprehensive or consistent history of the abhorrence of racism than myself. However, it is a dangerous and slippery slope to begin dictating at the point of a statute what clientele a privately held “accommodation” MUST entertain.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< So, FI, you are absolutely correct, this self-designated “philosophy” IS stupid, especially were it assigns primacy to supposed “property rights” in preference to…justice. [/quote]In my opinion you have this backwards. When private property rights are made subservient to coerced acceptance of anyone by anyone else, of any race by any other, the resulting bare appearance of justice is far outweighed by the actual denial of individual sovereignty which places both sides in peril of further future restriction.
[/quote]

You are too kind.

Some of what you say is normative–things as they should be, perhaps. I will stick to the descriptive–things as they are.

You will note that I forethought your objection: the racist is free to be a racist in his own hovel. If the “public accommodation” is held privately, it is nevertheless practicing a public function. Would it be just for a state to force it to practice racism? Of course not.

While you protest that the owner can practice his racism publicly, the “settled law” holds otherwise. In this particular instance, there is no “right”–not property rights, not shouting “fire” in a theater, etc.–which transcend the exercise of justice. You choose the word “sovereignty,” and I will remind you that in the US, it is the law which is sovereign.[/quote]
Oh I’m well aware of what settled law holds. Creative legal precedent over constitutional intent is a significant component in everything that’s gone wrong with this nation. Justice in this country, despite uneven early application, was intended to be limited to equal access to the redress of objectively quantifiable grievances, not social engineering. Making reprehensible, but non criminal injustice criminal, accomplishes the opposite of what it intends as is everywhere evinced by the state of race relations still prevalent here.

Let me ask you this before going any further. In your view can there be no case in which a privately held public accommodation is legally permitted to intentionally exclude anybody because of who or what they are? You will immediately recognize this as a loaded question so there’s no point in hiding it. It will also probably lead you into a more precise definition of “public”. It is still an honest question loaded thought it is.[/quote]

Furthermore these institutions are not “public accomodations” because the owner has made it very clear that he does not intend to be open to the public, because he exlcudes parts of the public maybe even the majority of it.

The problem is that Dr Sceptix believes that they should be open to the public by declaring them to be “public institutions” when they were never intended to be ones.

His conclusions are already in the premises, it is a circular argument and the premise is as normative as the premise of libertarian doctrine.

[/quote]

And you are precisely wrong.

I won’t school you in this, but, since you aspire to being an economist, I would suggest you educate yourself in the American notion of “public accommodation.”

THis is, once again, a matter in which your internally rationalized “first principles” are at odds with reality and history.

87

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

When a man makes use of his private property in such a way as to bring harm to society (others), that’s when society must have it’s say. Be it pollution, sex on the front lawn, or widespread segregation.

Private associations should be protected to a large degree. However, when arrangments are fashioned in such a way as to basically create two different Americas, something needed doing. [/quote]

Yes, yes, unequivocably yes.

Private property rights have always - to an extent - yielded to important public interests higher than an individual right to “do whatever I want, whenever I want, with muh private property”.

In the instant debate, two principles are at stake:

  1. The “right” to discriminate

  2. The “right” not to be discriminated against

One involves a domgatic adherence to an academic principle based on nothing but the shifting sands of moral relativism, and the other is based on a society’s decision to quash a social evil by strangling it at the roots.

Our “lib-uhh-turr-ee-ans” get the concept of private property exactly backwards - private property is our servant, not our master. Liberarians exist to serve the great god “The Market” - they prostrate before it and are as dogmatic and unyielding in their blind devotion to materlialist principles as any evangelical. No matter how unjust the outcome of a “market” or “use of private property”, we must not question Its wisdom, for it has wisdom beyond us mortals.

It’s baloney, and the Enlightenment liberals had none of this poppycock in mind when discussing liberty and property rights.

Some things society simply won’t tolerate in the name of civilization - racial discrimination, with its roots in chattel slavery, is one of them. And, this needs to be shouted from the rooftops - there is absolutely, positively nothing “conservative” about the rank moral relativism that underpins this libertarian version of property rights. If you find yourself agreeing with it, and you call yourself a “conservative”, relinquish the title and go slouching back to the fever swamps of left-wing radicalism where you belong.[/quote]

And you are precisely right.

(But more on this later. I have no water in the basement I do not have.)

88

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< and the other is based on a society’s decision to quash a social evil by strangling it at the roots >>>[/quote]Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong (I can take it), but I don’t think you were directing this last post to me, at least I hope not. I isolated the piece above because I do not believe the market is “the roots” of the evil of racial discrimination. The market manifestations are symptoms of which the self exalting contemptuous arrogance of some people are the roots.

Addressing that at the market level fails to address the roots which indeed are unaddressable by anyone outside of the perpetrators themselves. Nobody can force anybody else not to hate somebody. If you want to argue that coerced market integration is a good thing go ahead, but it does nothing to heal the roots. I contend it actually serves to strengthen and prolong the roots by the resentment and antagonism it foments.

For the record, in case I wasn’t clear, my motivation is enhanced societal harmony. Leaving people unfettered in their private business in this regard avoids the pitfalls I’ve mentioned. Nothing cements somebody in their views like being, what is in their mind, persecuted for them.

If you wish to further argue that you don’t care what they think as long as they’re forced to do the right thing that’s fine too, but it does nothing to actually mend race relations beyond preventing people from killing each other while in the same room.

89

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Of course, this argument that justifies the practice of racism >>>[/quote] You are in my view one of the sharpest people in this forum and a man whose education clearly exceeds my own by light years. It is therefore with respect and regret that I must say I believe you are committing a non sequitur with this statement. The mere permission of the practice of racism in a private concern does not equate to justification. Neither is passive rejection tantamount to active violence or enslavement. No person on this site has a more comprehensive or consistent history of the abhorrence of racism than myself. However, it is a dangerous and slippery slope to begin dictating at the point of a statute what clientele a privately held “accommodation” MUST entertain.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< So, FI, you are absolutely correct, this self-designated “philosophy” IS stupid, especially were it assigns primacy to supposed “property rights” in preference to…justice. [/quote]In my opinion you have this backwards. When private property rights are made subservient to coerced acceptance of anyone by anyone else, of any race by any other, the resulting bare appearance of justice is far outweighed by the actual denial of individual sovereignty which places both sides in peril of further future restriction.
[/quote]

You are too kind.

Some of what you say is normative–things as they should be, perhaps. I will stick to the descriptive–things as they are.

You will note that I forethought your objection: the racist is free to be a racist in his own hovel. If the “public accommodation” is held privately, it is nevertheless practicing a public function. Would it be just for a state to force it to practice racism? Of course not.

While you protest that the owner can practice his racism publicly, the “settled law” holds otherwise. In this particular instance, there is no “right”–not property rights, not shouting “fire” in a theater, etc.–which transcend the exercise of justice. You choose the word “sovereignty,” and I will remind you that in the US, it is the law which is sovereign.[/quote]
Oh I’m well aware of what settled law holds. Creative legal precedent over constitutional intent is a significant component in everything that’s gone wrong with this nation. Justice in this country, despite uneven early application, was intended to be limited to equal access to the redress of objectively quantifiable grievances, not social engineering. Making reprehensible, but non criminal injustice criminal, accomplishes the opposite of what it intends as is everywhere evinced by the state of race relations still prevalent here.

Let me ask you this before going any further. In your view can there be no case in which a privately held public accommodation is legally permitted to intentionally exclude anybody because of who or what they are? You will immediately recognize this as a loaded question so there’s no point in hiding it. It will also probably lead you into a more precise definition of “public”. It is still an honest question loaded thought it is.[/quote]

Furthermore these institutions are not “public accomodations” because the owner has made it very clear that he does not intend to be open to the public, because he exlcudes parts of the public maybe even the majority of it.

The problem is that Dr Sceptix believes that they should be open to the public by declaring them to be “public institutions” when they were never intended to be ones.

His conclusions are already in the premises, it is a circular argument and the premise is as normative as the premise of libertarian doctrine.

[/quote]

And you are precisely wrong.

I won’t school you in this, but, since you aspire to being an economist, I would suggest you educate yourself in the American notion of “public accommodation.”

THis is, once again, a matter in which your internally rationalized “first principles” are at odds with reality and history.
[/quote]

I am not wrong.

It just shows that your point of view is not unique and meddling with other peoples affairs has a long tradition in America.

That however can also be said about the stoning of allegedly unfaithful wives which hardly makes that reasonable.

In fact, all the arguments for meddling with privatge property can also be modified to justify stoning.

Of course, she has a right to her life and so on and so forth, but there are other values that need protection, like the sanctity of marriage and after that it is just a governments judgment call when it deems one value to be more important than others.

This line of reasoning opens the door to all kinds of misguided social engineering up to and including atrocities.

90

[quote]orion wrote:
<<< after that it is just a governments judgment call when it deems one value to be more important than others. >>>[/quote]
No, in a functioning representative republic it’s the people’s call. Whether ours is still functioning or not is an open question, but that doesn’t change the principle.

Here’s where ideologies like yours really fall down. You have deluded yourself into believing that without government people won’t stone each other.

I am for protecting the civil rights of all men equally by force of law. I simply don’t extend that to include the private livelihood of other citizens for purposes of “justice” for the reasons I’ve already mentioned.

91

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Of course, this argument that justifies the practice of racism >>>[/quote] You are in my view one of the sharpest people in this forum and a man whose education clearly exceeds my own by light years. It is therefore with respect and regret that I must say I believe you are committing a non sequitur with this statement. The mere permission of the practice of racism in a private concern does not equate to justification. Neither is passive rejection tantamount to active violence or enslavement. No person on this site has a more comprehensive or consistent history of the abhorrence of racism than myself. However, it is a dangerous and slippery slope to begin dictating at the point of a statute what clientele a privately held “accommodation” MUST entertain.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< So, FI, you are absolutely correct, this self-designated “philosophy” IS stupid, especially were it assigns primacy to supposed “property rights” in preference to…justice. [/quote]In my opinion you have this backwards. When private property rights are made subservient to coerced acceptance of anyone by anyone else, of any race by any other, the resulting bare appearance of justice is far outweighed by the actual denial of individual sovereignty which places both sides in peril of further future restriction.
[/quote]

You are too kind.

Some of what you say is normative–things as they should be, perhaps. I will stick to the descriptive–things as they are.

You will note that I forethought your objection: the racist is free to be a racist in his own hovel. If the “public accommodation” is held privately, it is nevertheless practicing a public function. Would it be just for a state to force it to practice racism? Of course not.

While you protest that the owner can practice his racism publicly, the “settled law” holds otherwise. In this particular instance, there is no “right”–not property rights, not shouting “fire” in a theater, etc.–which transcend the exercise of justice. You choose the word “sovereignty,” and I will remind you that in the US, it is the law which is sovereign.[/quote]
Oh I’m well aware of what settled law holds. Creative legal precedent over constitutional intent is a significant component in everything that’s gone wrong with this nation. Justice in this country, despite uneven early application, was intended to be limited to equal access to the redress of objectively quantifiable grievances, not social engineering. Making reprehensible, but non criminal injustice criminal, accomplishes the opposite of what it intends as is everywhere evinced by the state of race relations still prevalent here.

Let me ask you this before going any further. In your view can there be no case in which a privately held public accommodation is legally permitted to intentionally exclude anybody because of who or what they are? You will immediately recognize this as a loaded question so there’s no point in hiding it. It will also probably lead you into a more precise definition of “public”. It is still an honest question loaded thought it is.[/quote]

Furthermore these institutions are not “public accomodations” because the owner has made it very clear that he does not intend to be open to the public, because he exlcudes parts of the public maybe even the majority of it.

The problem is that Dr Sceptix believes that they should be open to the public by declaring them to be “public institutions” when they were never intended to be ones.

His conclusions are already in the premises, it is a circular argument and the premise is as normative as the premise of libertarian doctrine.

[/quote]

And you are precisely wrong.

I won’t school you in this, but, since you aspire to being an economist, I would suggest you educate yourself in the American notion of “public accommodation.”

THis is, once again, a matter in which your internally rationalized “first principles” are at odds with reality and history.
[/quote]

I am not wrong.

It just shows that your point of view is not unique and meddling with other peoples affairs has a long tradition in America.

That however can also be said about the stoning of allegedly unfaithful wives which hardly makes that reasonable.

In fact, all the arguments for meddling with privatge property can also be modified to justify stoning.

Of course, she has a right to her life and so on and so forth, but there are other values that need protection, like the sanctity of marriage and after that it is just a governments judgment call when it deems one value to be more important than others.

This line of reasoning opens the door to all kinds of misguided social engineering up to and including atrocities.

[/quote]

Nope. You are still wrong.

This last post is so saturated with misconceptions,unfounded assumptions, and fallacy as to be utterly ungrounded in fact and reality.

Nope. It is because you “reason from first principles,” without regard to reality or history, that it is you who invite “misguided social engineering” in the form of Libertarian Orthodoxy, and all the atrocities which might ensue.

If one proposes an alternative to reality, one should really think about all its downstream consequences, which material libertarianism does not do well at all.

Last, my assertions are just as valid as yours, but I can back it up with experience, and you can only back it up with the reality that festers within your head alone.

92

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong (I can take it), but I don’t think you were directing this last post to me, at least I hope not. [/quote]

No, I wasn’t directing that at you.

I don’t think the market is the root of the evil of discrimination either - but it is in the market where a racist thought becomes a racist action on the part of an individual. Sanctioning racist action wherever it takes place - certainly it wouldn’t only be in the market - is taking a shot at the “roots” as best we can.

But you make the Perfect the enemy of the Good. We have no way of forcing someone not to hate another person, but we do have a way of sanctioning behavior we have determined to be outside the boundaries of our civilization and expressing public moral opprobrium of that behavior. Just because we can’t chage minds at the flip of a switch doesn’t mean we, as a society, must therefore simply tolerate what we have decided is intolerable in practice.

Markets are human institutions and are governed by rules that reflect our values. For example, despite your God-given right to free speech, we have established a rule that if you lie with respect to some aspect of an exchange of private property - i.e., you commit fraud in a commercial transaction - you get punished. We’ve affirmatively decided that fraud deserves scorn and punishment and we protect our markets against this practice of human behavior. It’s value that we superimpose on our rules in the market. And anti-discrimination is another value.

And I well-know the slippery slope - that if you keep piling “values” on top of the market, you choke off nearly all the benefits to a free exchange of property. There should be limits. But allowing racial discrimination to perpetuate in markets for the sole reason that we owe it to ourselves to not violate some holy precept that people should be able to discriminate indiscriminately (!) simply makes no sense and doesn’t square with the hard-earned victories of our Western civilization - we don’t kneel before the Almighty Market and its iron rules, rather the opposite: the market, the most useful of tools, yields to the cultural values we demand fealty to.

And let me understand you clearly - do you believe that “racial harmony” would have progressed faster in the absence of anti-discrimination laws?

93

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And let me understand you clearly - do you believe that “racial harmony” would have progressed faster in the absence of anti-discrimination laws?[/quote]

What do you think was the advantage to the government enforcing “racial harmony” as opposed to letting the market handle it?

I think there was one main advantage. It gave moderates an external source to “blame” for allowing equality. They could simply blame the government and then have no problem in their social circles.

Racist Dave: “Man why are you letting those sand niggers into your store?”
Not-so-racist Steve: “Have to mate. It is the law.”
Racist Dave: “Damn government. So are you coming to Joes party next week?”
…
…

94

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…The “market libertarians” would constrain the argument–any argument–to their rules. I do not accept them.
Markets correct what markets correct, and there are no perfect markets. [/quote]

The settled law = justice-ians would constrain the argument–any argument–to their rules. I do not necessarily accept them.

Justice corrects what justice corrects, and there is no perfect justice, only the justice established by those in power at any particular time.[/quote]

You surely catch my restriction: I am being descriptive, not normative.
So my use of settled law in this context–note the quotation marks in the original–is appropriate to my purpose.

Now then, my further purpose is to question whether property rights are the only–or just one–consideration in the question of personal liberty. IF they are the ONLY guide to human relations–as Lifty or orion contend–than society must accept all sorts of injustices that ensue.

Whether justice is immutable and perfect is not my argument; we both know it is not. I argue only that the concept of Justice, and not property alone, must be among those which guide truly free people.

Justice, justice, shalt thou pursue.[/quote]

What is more towards justice than letting what one have gathered through one’s own work?[/quote]

I find so many of your posts from yesterday, well, unintelligible. It is not your fault, but it only shows that you are reading some website uncritically, and that website smells like Lew Rockwell.

But the following exchange outdoes itself. How do you write this:

and then rationalize it with this:

Why, then, would my friends at Amgen have bothered to develop synthetic erythropoietin, at great expense, if they could not have the benefits of its manufacture and sale? If “no one can own an idea” then no one should patent their work. If no one patents their work, and anyone can profit by it instead, why would anyone work on a new and improved product?

(Jonas Salk–a prickly character I met only once, and briefly–is a different case altogether.)

This inconsistency is not a matter of bizarrro logic alone. It simply another example of the ludicrous “reasoning from principles” that afflicts our self-designated libertarians.

95

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
<<< Fair enough.
Can I think of a public accommodation by which I may exercise my private biases?
Yes. I do not have to treat every patient that comes my way. For example, I do not have to attend a dirtbag covered in Nazi swastika tattoos.
But ethics, and sometimes the law to which I am subject, determine otherwise. I must find alternative care for the asshole; in an emergency, I must provide care and pass on the obligation only when the patient is stable.

Now you may see my point. “Property rights,” as defined by the matereialist–the property here being my practice of medicine–do not have absolute primacy. They are claimed by me, but only in recognition of the public compromises.

That is descriptive. Now you tell me: is that how it should be?
If you are a material libertarian, the answer is no; I should not be forced by any compromise, however voluntary, to treat assholes.

Now Tribulus, I know you are no asshole, but were you of another minority, should you not claim rights that are to be respected along with, or in contention to, “property rights?” Or do you have no rights whatsoever, except those subject to another’s property rights?[/quote]
Alright, ya muddied up the waters here. The conversation Fightingirish and Orion were alluding to, as well as the frame from Lifty’s cartoon were not dealing with the practice of medicine wherein life, limb or permanent disability were hanging in the balance. I am no doctor so correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I know life, limb or long term well being are not generally imperiled, at least not immediately, in actually private practice anyway. That is usually handled at hospitals. (I just know you’re gonna come back to medicine with this, Probably along the lines of follow up care, rehab, private hospitals etc. I’ll deal with that when the time comes).

The context was social. Restaurants, clubs, stores, hair salons etc. My contention was that if Louis Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright wish to run a business with their own money that denies service to white people, I would find it unfortunate, but would defend their right to do so. If some neo nazi covered in swastika tattoos doesn’t wants blacks in his party store, I wouldn’t go there and I hope few enough others would as well to effectively bankrupt his business, but I do not want big brother forcing him to be nice because the room behind that door is far too large.

Also, as I said in my first post, the result of such coerced “enlightenment” may be the bare form of justice, but in both cases it serves only to reinforce the racial hatred. What’s the point anyway? Is a black man going to finance a known nazi establishment by his patronage because the proprietor is legally forced to allow him to?

We would be miles further down the road to racial harmony, which is my heartfelt longing, without all this government arm twisting.

[/quote]

First, my example is very real. I am like other physicians: I work in an office, an ER, or on the hospital floors, and the situation I describe is not hypothetical. It happens.

For those who think that “The Market” solves every social problem, please explain how a Catholic hospital can survive, and maintains a “no abortion” policy, and still take federal funds (MediCare and MediCal) which preclude such a policy. The standard libertarian response is: “See! Government ruins everything it touches!” which does not explain how, in a real world, rights in conflict are adjudicated or resolved.

As for you counter examples, friend Trib, nothing stops a person from establishing a private club for a common purpose which would exclude some minority.
But if racial harmony, as you put it, would have been achieved by “market forces” alone, then law would not have been necessary, it would have happened all on its own. Or racism, among other evils, would not exist alone, unless there was a market for it. Lester Maddox, with all his ax handles, did not go out of business because of “Market Forces.” He had lots of customers. Lester Maddox - Wikipedia
He was, after all, just choosing with whom he wanted to be associated.

96

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…So justice is elusive; nevertheless, there are no “property rights” without it.
[/quote]

So then the discussion should be, “Where do these two sets of railroad tracks intersect?”[/quote]

Ah! The scales fall from his eyes…[/quote]

“Fell.” Awhile back. Not recently. And certainly not in the discussion of this particular thread.

Nowwwwww…since you have conceded that indeed a pursuit of discovery of aforementioned intersection is in order we boomerang back to my earlier stated premise that that intersection is a subjectively arrived at one, no? The justice of one man is the travesty of another, e.g., Roe v. Wade?
[/quote]

My contention in this thread is contra-Lifty: property rights are not the ONLY arbiter of liberty; and they may be a threat to it. So I do not need to concede anything regarding the libertarian conceit on property rights; justice is elusive, not irrelevant.

Where I AGREE with you is that there are some issues of moral character which are not answered by property rights alone or at all, and the justice of a situation is held by both sides. You choose Roe v. Wade, or gun rights, and I choose Popular Sovereignty over slavery in Territories, etc. In no case does a libertarian with all his “axioms” offer a clear, unequivocal standard of moral action. An argument made by such people will be internally inconsistent (see Chris, above) or argued from both sides.

But such arguments, freed from other valuable consideration, and propelled only by “property rights,” may lead to moral horrors, as thunderbolt has written.
One more reason to embrace pluralism.

97

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

When a man makes use of his private property in such a way as to bring harm to society (others), that’s when society must have it’s say. Be it pollution, sex on the front lawn, or widespread segregation.

Private associations should be protected to a large degree. However, when arrangments are fashioned in such a way as to basically create two different Americas, something needed doing. [/quote]

Yes, yes, unequivocably yes.

Private property rights have always - to an extent - yielded to important public interests higher than an individual right to “do whatever I want, whenever I want, with muh private property”.

In the instant debate, two principles are at stake:

  1. The “right” to discriminate

  2. The “right” not to be discriminated against

One involves a domgatic adherence to an academic principle based on nothing but the shifting sands of moral relativism, and the other is based on a society’s decision to quash a social evil by strangling it at the roots.

Our “lib-uhh-turr-ee-ans” get the concept of private property exactly backwards - private property is our servant, not our master. Liberarians exist to serve the great god “The Market” - they prostrate before it and are as dogmatic and unyielding in their blind devotion to materlialist principles as any evangelical. No matter how unjust the outcome of a “market” or “use of private property”, we must not question Its wisdom, for it has wisdom beyond us mortals.

It’s baloney, and the Enlightenment liberals had none of this poppycock in mind when discussing liberty and property rights.

Some things society simply won’t tolerate in the name of civilization - racial discrimination, with its roots in chattel slavery, is one of them. And, this needs to be shouted from the rooftops - there is absolutely, positively nothing “conservative” about the rank moral relativism that underpins this libertarian version of property rights. If you find yourself agreeing with it, and you call yourself a “conservative”, relinquish the title and go slouching back to the fever swamps of left-wing radicalism where you belong.[/quote]

What are you talking about? I have never heard anyone say that people are a slave to the Market. The market is merely individuals making consensual trades, nothing more.

98

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…The “market libertarians” would constrain the argument–any argument–to their rules. I do not accept them.
Markets correct what markets correct, and there are no perfect markets. [/quote]

The settled law = justice-ians would constrain the argument–any argument–to their rules. I do not necessarily accept them.

Justice corrects what justice corrects, and there is no perfect justice, only the justice established by those in power at any particular time.[/quote]

You surely catch my restriction: I am being descriptive, not normative.
So my use of settled law in this context–note the quotation marks in the original–is appropriate to my purpose.

Now then, my further purpose is to question whether property rights are the only–or just one–consideration in the question of personal liberty. IF they are the ONLY guide to human relations–as Lifty or orion contend–than society must accept all sorts of injustices that ensue.

Whether justice is immutable and perfect is not my argument; we both know it is not. I argue only that the concept of Justice, and not property alone, must be among those which guide truly free people.

Justice, justice, shalt thou pursue.[/quote]

What is more towards justice than letting what one have gathered through one’s own work?[/quote]

I find so many of your posts from yesterday, well, unintelligible. It is not your fault, but it only shows that you are reading some website uncritically, and that website smells like Lew Rockwell.
[/quote]

Lew Rockwell, sorry. I do not read much on the internet except when I see something that peaks my interest through the dozens of RSS feeds I have. And Lewrockwell.com is not on there, newadvent.com is.

I’ll rephrase, isn’t it just to leave a man’s private property alone, and not commit aggression towards his private property when he made no aggression towards another?

Let me rephrase, knowledge is free, no one can own knowledge (e.g. If someone memorizes the Bible, they have knowledge of the Bible even though it is copyrighted). However, the State has made it improbable to be able to use that knowledge in some cases through patents and copyrights. Let’s say I have the knowledge of how to make a salt-water engine that runs more efficient, clearer, with only a cup of water and a teaspoon of salt than a petrol engine. Now if I built one, Ford would have the right by the State to force me to not sell that engine. I am not saying that if your friend should be forced to divulge proprietary knowledge. But if someone else figures it out why should they be forced to not use their knowledge?

Look at Tylenol, what is there 15 different generics of Tylenol on the market, and they still sell more than anyone else. Viagra? Most people stick with those that originated the product.

I am not sure what you mean, but the principles have already been shown to be within logic, so instead of going through logic to come to the principles again, the principles are used from a starting point.

99

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
<<< Fair enough.
Can I think of a public accommodation by which I may exercise my private biases?
Yes. I do not have to treat every patient that comes my way. For example, I do not have to attend a dirtbag covered in Nazi swastika tattoos.
But ethics, and sometimes the law to which I am subject, determine otherwise. I must find alternative care for the asshole; in an emergency, I must provide care and pass on the obligation only when the patient is stable.

Now you may see my point. “Property rights,” as defined by the matereialist–the property here being my practice of medicine–do not have absolute primacy. They are claimed by me, but only in recognition of the public compromises.

That is descriptive. Now you tell me: is that how it should be?
If you are a material libertarian, the answer is no; I should not be forced by any compromise, however voluntary, to treat assholes.

Now Tribulus, I know you are no asshole, but were you of another minority, should you not claim rights that are to be respected along with, or in contention to, “property rights?” Or do you have no rights whatsoever, except those subject to another’s property rights?[/quote]
Alright, ya muddied up the waters here. The conversation Fightingirish and Orion were alluding to, as well as the frame from Lifty’s cartoon were not dealing with the practice of medicine wherein life, limb or permanent disability were hanging in the balance. I am no doctor so correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I know life, limb or long term well being are not generally imperiled, at least not immediately, in actually private practice anyway. That is usually handled at hospitals. (I just know you’re gonna come back to medicine with this, Probably along the lines of follow up care, rehab, private hospitals etc. I’ll deal with that when the time comes).

The context was social. Restaurants, clubs, stores, hair salons etc. My contention was that if Louis Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright wish to run a business with their own money that denies service to white people, I would find it unfortunate, but would defend their right to do so. If some neo nazi covered in swastika tattoos doesn’t wants blacks in his party store, I wouldn’t go there and I hope few enough others would as well to effectively bankrupt his business, but I do not want big brother forcing him to be nice because the room behind that door is far too large.

Also, as I said in my first post, the result of such coerced “enlightenment” may be the bare form of justice, but in both cases it serves only to reinforce the racial hatred. What’s the point anyway? Is a black man going to finance a known nazi establishment by his patronage because the proprietor is legally forced to allow him to?

We would be miles further down the road to racial harmony, which is my heartfelt longing, without all this government arm twisting.

[/quote]

First, my example is very real. I am like other physicians: I work in an office, an ER, or on the hospital floors, and the situation I describe is not hypothetical. It happens.

For those who think that “The Market” solves every social problem, please explain how a Catholic hospital can survive, and maintains a “no abortion” policy, and still take federal funds (MediCare and MediCal) which preclude such a policy. The standard libertarian response is: “See! Government ruins everything it touches!” which does not explain how, in a real world, rights in conflict are adjudicated or resolved.

As for you counter examples, friend Trib, nothing stops a person from establishing a private club for a common purpose which would exclude some minority.
But if racial harmony, as you put it, would have been achieved by “market forces” alone, then law would not have been necessary, it would have happened all on its own. Or racism, among other evils, would not exist alone, unless there was a market for it. Lester Maddox, with all his ax handles, did not go out of business because of “Market Forces.” He had lots of customers. Lester Maddox - Wikipedia
He was, after all, just choosing with whom he wanted to be associated.[/quote]

I’m not sure what’s with you pretending like the market is a thing unto itself.

However, if someone is discriminated against, others that do not discriminate against those can take business away from those that do discriminate by offering better circumstances to those discriminated against.

Business owner 1 discriminates against red head legal aides. He discriminates by paying them lower wages than blond legal aides. Business owner 2 does not discriminate against red head legal aides and offers them a higher salary than business owner 1, and business owner 2 effectively steals employees from business owner 1. Effect is eventually red head legal aides will eventually be equal with their blond counter parts if all things being equal besides hair color.

100

I should probably read all the posts up to this point before making a contribution, but fuck it.

As a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party I come across all sorts of Libertarians, many of whom do fit into one of the 24 aforementioned categories. Yes, there are some ridiculous Libertarians out there who hold a pie-in-the-sky view of the world and the U.S. But what all Libertarians have in common is this: we all feel that WE are better suited to make decisions concerning our own life, body, property, etc than the govt is. While there are certainly people out there who are not capable of making the best decisions, as long as their decisions and actions do not forcibly interfere with the rights of others, it should be us who determine the course of our lives, bodies, properties and so on. I don’t think this is an outrageous stance to take at all.

Like I said, there are people who cannot handle this responsibility, but as long these people do not interfere with the rights of others, they should be free to fuck their lives up all they want. The govt is not a surrogate parent and should not act as one for those who cannot accept the responsibilities that come with living in a society. Believe it or not, if left to our own devices, most of us will do just fine. Those who won’t do so at their own expense. Perhaps the govt should only exist to protect our rights from those people, but it should not exist to protect us from ourselves. Is this a radical, unacceptable notion? I think not.