What Kind of Libertarian Are You?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
122

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So your answer to blacks would’ve been “Eh, guess you’ll have to wait until the market takes care of this. Whenever that might be. Good luck.” Hell, the misery under segregation could justify revolution in the minds of many.
[/quote]

If anything, I probably would have told them not to wait on the government to solve their problems.

Certainly you realize that many of the social injustices committed against blacks and other minorities occurred under the watchful eye of the state, or sometimes with state’s seal of approval?

123

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

Why though? Why is that okay (to differentiate based on “looks”, but to do so based on race is not?[/quote]

Because with one class, there is no moral or rational justification for the discrimination, and with the other, there is.

The difference is, the libertarian is a moral relativist and can’t distinguish that some forms of discrimination are worse than others and cannot be tolerated in the name of our hard-earned civilization. I don’t suffer from moral relativism, and never have.
[/quote]

Okay then, going off of my last post, what solution do you propose?

When should the state intervene to prevent social injustices carried out by business owners?

125

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

The Holy Market, peace be unto it, is not infallible. The state did what the market had yet to do. End of story. [/quote]

The Holy State, peace be unto it, is not infallible. The state did what the market had yet to do because the state carries the sword, i.e., might makes right. End of story. [/quote]

You’re right, the state isn’t infallible. Which is why I’m not for central planning. There’s ground to be found between anarchy and absolute centralized power. Otherwise, we can’t even make the argument for funding national defense or justice systems through taxation.

126

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< I don’t think the market is the root of the evil of discrimination either. >>>[/quote]We agree here then. That didn’t seem the case to me in the quoted post.[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote: <<< opprobrium >>>[/quote] Great word. I had to look that one up. Filed =][quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< 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. >>>[/quote]But fraud is an act of commission against the objective well being of another person resulting in quantifiable damages. Refusing someone admittance to an establishment, while terrible and possibly emotionally hurtful, is simply not the same thing.[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< 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[/quote] The holy precept is not the permission of racial discrimination. The holy precept is protecting people’s right to be passively wrong with their own property. A right that should be afforded to all men of any race or other distinction. (I have a feeling I see a challenge coming to my use of the word “passive” here)[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< the Almighty Market <<<>>> the most useful of tools, yields to the cultural values we demand fealty to.>>>[/quote]Of course in cases of, again, acts of commission, this is and should be the case. I know you say you recognize the potential slippery slope, but as I say, this just makes me nervous when it crosses over into the realm of enforced “social justice”. Forgive the term. It’s not one I would not usually associate with you, but it does fit in this case.

[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]I don’t know if faster is exactly what I mean to say and admittedly this would be difficult to prove, but I do believe the product of today would be of a higher quality without, not just this, but much of the rest of the engineered overreaching that came out of the 60’s.

127

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
<<< 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.>>>[/quote]Come on now Doc. I didn’t say your examples weren’t real. I said they weren’t analogous.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: For those who think that “The Market” solves every social problem, >>>[/quote] You said “those of you” here so I will assume that the fact that I didn’t say this either indicates you weren’t referring to me.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: <<<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.[/quote]Irrelevant to the point at hand.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: 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.[/quote]Emphasis mine. I am not a standard libertarian and have never once said that “government ruins everything it touches” though I would say that it ruins quite a bit of what touches.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< 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. >>>[/quote]What if they serve food I like or sell merchandise or services I want?[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< 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. >>>[/quote]I didn’t say no law was necessary. I said laws guaranteeing the protection of all legal rights were long overdue. My objection was to laws forcing people to serve a clientele with their own property, citing resentment for such enforcement as serving to further entrench and protract the underly cause.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< 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]Maddox lived before the fruits of the aforementioned laws guaranteeing equal protection of legal rights. Again, anything we did would’ve sucked. I simply believe we did not choose the best of all bad choices.

128

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The history of segregation of the obese vs. blacks? C’mon, if an obese doesn’t get hired by the local GNC, other places will hire him. The dude not getting hired to wait table at Hooters isn’t a social problem. Two different Americas, enforced by one race over the other, is. Noone here wants to use governemnt to squash every instance of discrimination imaginable. However, when it’s systemic, reinforced by an undeniable history…You just can’t keep waiting until The Market (que religious sounding organ music) finally, some day, whenever,–at the expense of continued suffering–solves the issue. You’re placing the Market over your fellow citizens (blacks) in this case.[/quote]

What is this The Market, the market is not God. It is a description of peaceful transactions which presuppose that those in “the market” will be competitive to a point where racism would be pushed out because those that are not racists would push out those that are. [/quote]

The Holy Market, peace be unto it, is not infallible. The state did what the market had yet to do. End of story. [/quote]

Well, I do not read everything else says here, but I am guessing someone presented the Market as something that it is not? All I can do to solve this solution is to offer that instead of looking at the Market as a stand alone entity, the market is the sample or population of all transactions either done freely or through coercion. If today there is no transactions made, then there would be no market.

I would not say the market is infallible because if it was infallible, no one would make a dime in profit. When things are not efficient that is where opportunity to be more efficient comes along.

129

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, while I’m not sure anyone here does this, I second the request made of libertarians to stop using the label Conservatives. Please? We’re not anti-statists.[/quote]

Actually Conservatives have historically been known as statists, and big government at that.

130

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

Why though? Why is that okay (to differentiate based on “looks”, but to do so based on race is not?[/quote]

Because with one class, there is no moral or rational justification for the discrimination, and with the other, there is.

The difference is, the libertarian is a moral relativist and can’t distinguish that some forms of discrimination are worse than others and cannot be tolerated in the name of our hard-earned civilization. I don’t suffer from moral relativism, and never have.
[/quote]

I will see if I can find something that Rothbard said about morals when it comes to economics, but later. At the base level an economist is not a moralist. The only thing an economist looks at objectively is if things are practical (e.g. The goal of this tax is to help the poor, this tax does not help the poor, it just lowers the standard of living for the rich and declines productivity over all, therefore this tax in not practical). However, Natural Law on top of praxeology is the platform of Austrian School of Economics.

Practically the only thing ‘wrong’ with being discriminate in ones relationships, be it personal or business, is that you are hurting your business. However, that is just as an economist. And, when looking at being an individual it is different, as an individual I think it is ethically wrong to be racist.

As an economist (different view point, different kind of objectivity) the only thing being a racist will do is hurt their business. It is not practical to be racist, but it is also not practical for others to force someone not to be a racist or to be a racist (in case of Jim Crow laws).

I think some of the guys (on both sides) get it mixed up. One side is arguing from solely an economics side (practicality) with out seeing that the other side is arguing from an individual side (ethics). The other side arguing from an individual side is arguing without knowing that the other side is arguing from an economics side. But both are calling it economics.

I think we can all agree that being racist is morally and ethically wrong. However, looking from a praxeology + Natural Law point of view it is also wrong to commit an act of aggression on a non-aggressive person.

Economics is not about finding out if being selfish or unselfish is right, or any character traits someone has (e.g. racist) but if those traits lead to anything. It is solely the science about if things are practical or not.

Yes, economics has been made into something that it is not. People have thrown everything from right and wrong to whatever into economics. In its purest form, Economics is about determining if a certain human action will provide its intended results, not if it is right or wrong in the moral sense. If A is supposed to cause B, but causes C or D instead, then as an economist it is our duty to show that it does not work through logic. And if A is supposed to cause B, and it does in fact cause B, then it is our duty to tell the truth that A in fact leads to B, nothing more.

And, I know I am repeating myself, but only for clarity reasons. As an individual however, If A leads to B, and if A and/or B are wrong morally/ethically/religiously I have the right as an individual to speak out because it goes against my beliefs.

However, beliefs are not supposed to be factored into science when looking at the situation objectively.

I think some people on both sides should go back to their respective libraries and read more on what they are talking about.

Issue at hand #1: Protectionism, How do you do it? Tariffs, quotas, &c.

What is the purpose of protecting the local market from outside markets? To keep wealth inside the boarders and build wealth while keeping it inside the country.

What does it actually do? Keeps wealth inside the boarders, restricts competition, distributes wealth to those wealthy enough to have the business in the first place, lowers purchasing power as prices rise when something becomes more scarce, harms foreign relations, restricts use of private property, &c.

Yes, Protectionism does keep wealth inside the country, however it does not fully maximize, and in some instances reverse, the second objection I listed. Therefore, protectionism harms society by aggression on people’s private property by not allowing them to have a higher purchasing power outside the country by forcing them to only by inside the designated boarders.

131

[quote]pushharder wrote:

From an earlier post that was not responded to, So T-bolt, you admit a private club is a suitable venue for one(s) to practice racism if one(s) so wishes, right? If that indeed is the case you have conceded that there is…somewhere…a line, that must be respected by any and all, where behind it lies territory that the government may not employ its coercive powers, right? Where is that line? How do you define that line? Can/should the line “move with the times?”[/quote]

Sure there is a line - I’d mark it at any business that is solicitous of or generally open to the public for commercial purposes.

Negative, based on where I drew the line above.

This isn’t a commercial transaction - and freedom of association, which is a different philosophical and legal animal, is what is at stake in your proposal in the above paragraph.

Asked and answered, and it has nothing to do with currency. Dustin can drink whiskey with whomever he wants - that is a freedom of association issue, not a commercial transaction. Moreover, you’ve assumed a conclusion I don’ buy ir argue - I don’t think the state should intervene in Dustin’s decision to have someone mow his lawn - he isn’t soliciting nor making his business open to the public enough for it to matter.

Asked and answered, see above.

Luckily, for our sake, we don’t have to abide by the dogmas of academic libertarianism - we can govern on a case by case basis and accept not only line-drawing, but manage competing interests, such as a deference to certain aspects of personal freedom (who you pick to scrub your back in your hot tub) while also affirming important values and rules of governance that are more social and less private (rules of commercial transactions for a lunch counter on the corner of 5th and Main).

And that is what anti-discrimination laws (of which, I do not favor 100%) attempt to do - balance the “right” to discriminate against the “right” not to be discriminated against. There is no point of mathematical precision that satisfies all interested parties - but there must be some kind of balance if we want to establish our society’s ground rules for civilization (and we do, notwithstanding the libertarian’s desire for moral relativism).

132

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I will see if I can find something that Rothbard said about morals when it comes to economics, but later. [/quote]

I can save you the trouble - don’t waste your time. If you quote Rothbard, the only effect it will have is that I will have even less respect for you. The man was a fraud and a buffoon. He isn’t taken seriously by anyone on matters moral or economic, so don’t waste the effort.

133

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
So Doc (and I surmise T-bolt as well), you admit a private club is a suitable venue for one(s) to practice racism if one(s) so wishes, right? If that indeed is the case you have conceded that there is…somewhere…a line, that must be respected by any and all, where behind it lies territory that the government may not employ its coercive powers, right? Where is that line? How do you define that line? Can/should the line “move with the times?”

In other words…point to “the intersection” we spoke of earlier on a “map” for me. Can you make X mark the spot?[/quote]

No. Above my pay grade.[/quote]

Wrong answer.

Thou shalt not wax eloquent herein and up until this point only to scurry off huntin’ a hole to slip into when I present my vise.
[/quote]

Your vise holds no teeth for me.

Nowhere do I pretend that I have an answer for every situation of conflict, moral or otherwise, so I have nothing to get caught in your vise.
I repeat myself: material libertarianism–that idea, here so frequently flaunted, that economics and property should be the ONLY guide to moral behavior–is not the ONLY answer to every such conflict.

I take it a step further. I make the argument for American pluralism. For all the examples you may care to pose, I cannot provide a ouija board–like property rights–that gives the correct answer. But there are institutions and processes, in and outside of government, that provide the arena for contesting parties to resolve their disputes. The markets are one, the courts another, politics yet another, private and civic associations yet another. Alliances are shifted by subject matter and by compromise; we see that everywhere here.

The line you would have me draw, between the public and private, is tested by tb in his post immediately above. Where the contest is toughest, is where the parties cannot agree on what is private and what is public, and that, too, is open to adjudication.

134

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
<<< 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.>>>[/quote]Come on now Doc. I didn’t say your examples weren’t real. I said they weren’t analogous.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: For those who think that “The Market” solves every social problem, >>>[/quote] You said “those of you” here so I will assume that the fact that I didn’t say this either indicates you weren’t referring to me.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: <<<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.[/quote]Irrelevant to the point at hand.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: 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.[/quote]Emphasis mine. I am not a standard libertarian and have never once said that “government ruins everything it touches” though I would say that it ruins quite a bit of what touches.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< 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. >>>[/quote]What if they serve food I like or sell merchandise or services I want?[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< 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. >>>[/quote]I didn’t say no law was necessary. I said laws guaranteeing the protection of all legal rights were long overdue. My objection was to laws forcing people to serve a clientele with their own property, citing resentment for such enforcement as serving to further entrench and protract the underly cause.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< 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]Maddox lived before the fruits of the aforementioned laws guaranteeing equal protection of legal rights. Again, anything we did would’ve sucked. I simply believe we did not choose the best of all bad choices.
[/quote]

Just briefly, we understand each other and I hope your basement is dry.

The point about Catholic hospitals I find very relevant; see my post immediately above. (In a civil society, even a Catholic hospital has to face the question of abortion rights. What “market” determined their solutions to that one? Think instead about the extragovernmental solutions that protect both the rights of the Church and the law under Roe v Wade!)

(The Lester Maddox reference becomes all the more pointed: you simply accept that no “market force” could change him, his attitude, and his ax-handles–it only reinforced the injustice of public racism–and law could change “bad behavior.” Laws against discrimination may not be “the best of all bad choices,” but I can’t think of a less bad choice than law, and justice equally applied.)

136

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I will see if I can find something that Rothbard said about morals when it comes to economics, but later. [/quote]

I can save you the trouble - don’t waste your time. If you quote Rothbard, the only effect it will have is that I will have even less respect for you. The man was a fraud and a buffoon. He isn’t taken seriously by anyone on matters moral or economic, so don’t waste the effort.[/quote]

Rothbard. Rothbard.

What virus will spread rapidly, destroy the cerebral cortex and all judgment, and every executive function, rendering the victim a mindless golem?
Well, there is ebola–so fast that it burns itself out by destroying the community in hours. And JC virus and kuru, which turn men to zombies over years.

And then there is Rothbard.

137

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

But fraud is an act of commission against the objective well being of another person resulting in quantifiable damages. [/quote]

Let’s use your definition - how is discrimination on the basis of race not “an act of commission against the well being of another person resulting in quantifiable damages”? It is certainly against their well-being, and we can quantify damages just as easily.

My point was that we have an affirmative rule in the market that restricts one of your absolute freedoms (speech) in the name of protecting a market participant from the exercise of your absolute freedom.

I worry less about the passivity as I do the categorical - so, is it fair to say, you believe zoning laws to be in violation of this “holy precept”?

No, I think “social justice” fits what I am talking about correctly, properly understood (like “progressive”, it is a term that has been bastardized and corrupted by the Left). Why I worry less about the slippery slope in this case is, let’s face it, race is different.

An entire race was denied their civil rights and we suddenly liberated from the libertarians (heh) who held them as property. And there they were - uneducated, propertyless, largely despised - and thrown into society to “find their way” in the market. They had no reliabel means of integrating themselves into civil society and, though “free”, doors were shut to them. Yet we expected them to take advantage of their newfound freedom and rise to a level of material prosperity and security that the rest of America enjoyed.

We owed it to these folks to engineer a certain “playing field” in the market - to help provide an equality of opportunity that didn’t exist. It was never a panacea, but it was a “best efforts” to open some doors in “the market” and also establish that society would not publicly tolerate racism in practice. Was it perfect? Of course not. Nothing is. But the better question is - was it good? Yes, and it was just.

I take your point, but I’d alert you to the fact that, historically, the Civil Rights movement occurred before the 1960s revolution and, in truth, existed apart form the radicalism of the 60s agenda. Now the 60s agenda co-opted it and stretched it, but I think it is an historical fact that is very important for context.

That said, there has been overreach - I don’t agree with all anti-discrimination laws (for example, I do not support affirmative action). I make a distinction between policy designed to promote equality of opportunity (good) from equality of result (bad).

But I don’t think we can privilege a right to discrminate above all other affirmative values without descending into nihilism. No thanks.

138

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Doc nor Bolt answered the lawn mowing question. You said Dustin was not free to sell his products/services based on discrimination but is he free to buy products/services based on race? After all you mentioned “commercial transactions” as a fulcrum (or “line”).

Why would selling be a commercial transaction worthy of state intervention to insure non-discrimination but not buying?[/quote]

Sure he can buy from whomever he wants - because even if we somehow outlawed it, we can’t enforce sanctions against racist “buying” as a practical matter.

So, who cares?

140

[quote]pushharder wrote:

This gets way too complicated. Governing on a case by case basis tends to lead to gargantuan bureaucracies and litigation by the truckload. Net result is what we have and what we are about to get more of - nanny statism - Big Government the Clucking Hen chasing everybody around insisting they “do the right thing.”[/quote]

Not anymore than any other litigation where someone can be held liable for misconduct. And, of course, there is a fantastic, no-frills solution: don’t be a racist and you don’t have to worry about it.