Paul and the Private Parts

Bigots are not the only ones hurt by bans on discrimination.

Last week James Clyburn, a former civil rights activist who is now a Democratic congressman from South Carolina, warned that if Rand Paul is elected to represent Kentucky in the Senate, "it will be the first step…to turning back the gains that we started making way back in the 1860s." The comment, provoked by the Republican candidate's criticism of the federal ban on racial discrimination in places of "public accommodation," was not just hyperbolic but radically misguided, because Paul's position is based on the same principle that led to the abolition of slavery and the long struggle for equality that followed it: the principle of self-ownership.

If we own ourselves, it follows that no one else can own us—the most obvious way in which slavery violates human rights. It also follows that we own our labor, which means we decide who benefits from it and under what terms, and the fruits of our labor, which means we control access to our property. All these rights were flagrantly violated not only by slavery but by the racist Jim Crow regime that succeeded it, which forced businesses to discriminate against blacks as customers and employees.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aimed to eliminate state-imposed segregation and all other forms of official discrimination against blacks. While wholeheartedly supporting that goal, which belatedly implemented the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law, Paul expressed qualms about the provisions banning private discrimination, which impinged on the same liberties—freedom of contract, freedom of association, and property rights—that were routinely disregarded under Jim Crow.

Paul noted that liberty would not mean much if it did not include the ability to say and do "abhorrent things." Just as freedom of speech and freedom of association benefit the Ku Klux Klan along with the NAACP, the right to control one's property and to choose one's customers benefits the bigot along with former slaves and their descendants.

Paul's more sophisticated critics argued not that he was racist but that he was unrealistic. Given the social environment created by centuries of government-backed slavery and oppression, they said, segregation in the South would not have been eliminated simply by withdrawing state support for it. Even if every racist law and government policy were abolished, racist business practices would have lingered as long as there was a demand for them or as long as owners were willing to pay an economic price for their own bigotry.

But before concluding that new infringements on liberty were necessary to remove the stain left by past infringements, consider some unforeseen consequences of the federal ban on private discrimination. The precedent has encouraged an assault on freedom of association, as illustrated by demands that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Christian student groups, and online dating services adopt gay-friendly policies.

The blurring of the distinction between public and private property has invited a wide array of meddlesome regulations, ranging from bans on smoking in bars and restaurants to unfunded mandates requiring expensive renovations to accommodate customers in wheelchairs. As Paul noted, the "public accommodation" rationale even has been cited as a pretext for forcing business owners to allow guns on their property.

In upholding the ban on discrimination by places of public accommodation, the Supreme Court loosened constitutional restraints on federal authority, extending it to cover businesses with tangential connections to interstate commerce, such as a motel that serves travelers or an Illinois restaurant that uses Idaho potatoes. This absurd stretching of the Commerce Clause, usually applauded by progressives, has led to results even they do not like, such as federal restrictions on abortion and attempts to override state policies regarding medical marijuana and assisted suicide.

A broad license to interfere with property rights and freedom of contract inevitably deprives people of choices they value. Rand Paul deserves credit for pointing out that we cannot abridge the freedom of those we despise without endangering our own freedom.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

© Copyright 2010 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The State: [laughing] Good! Your hate has made you powerful. Now, fulfill your destiny and take your father's place at my side!

    Rand: Never. I'll never turn to the Dark Side. You have failed, your highness. I am a libertarian, like my father before me.

    The State: [angrily] So be it..."libertarian"!

    To be honest, I have little to no faith that Rand won't disappoint and be just another politician. If he doesn't pander to the right, I'd be amazed.

    But at the end of the day, I really don't give a shit. They're all politicians, so fuck them.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    Well done.

  • Max||

    Except wouldn't it be nice for somebody on the losertarian right to explain how Rand's old man managed to have a racist newsletter put our under his name for years without knowing about it. Did Rand ever read the newsletter? These fuckers have been willing to exploit racism for political gain. So why do we think they're not racists? Jacob Sullum is a right-wing hack.

  • Max, simplified||

    Everyone right-of-center is racist.

  • Max||

    Just explain the racist newsletters. Don't tell me Rand, who is a chip off the old ideological block, wans't involved enough in his daddy's career to read the newsletters. Reason made a big deal of them when they came to light. Why don't they matter anymore? Because you fucking losertarians are so desperate to have one of your own on the national scene that you're willing to look the other way. You're either racists or hypocrites.

  • Max, simplified||

    Only liberals are non-racists. Everyone else is a Klan sympathizer.

  • Max, further simplified||

    There's never been such a thing as a racist liberal. Never.

    And Mommy likes it when I play "find the man in the boat" with her before bedtime.

  • Max, even more simplified||

    Ron Paul wrote those newsletters himself, in between Klan meetings. I don't have to PROVE it, but it's true because he's not a liberal.

  • Keith Olbermann||

    I have taught you well, Max.

  • ||

    What the fuck do we have to explain about Ron Paul's racist newsletters? Could you rely any more heavily on complete non-sequitors? God damn, you're stupid.

  • Max||

    Being a libertarian means never having to explain anything, right? Go suck Ron Paul's cock, you right-wing fuck.

  • Jeff ||

    Wow, Max. You really are a child. You think we're all "losertarians" and other expletives yet you're the one resulting to name-calling and dirty language. I'm sorry, who's the real "loser" here?

    As for Ron Paul's newsletters, I believe Reason answered that question when they had an article that revealed sources naming Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard as the ghost writers. It's still unfortunate they resulted to such low tactics to appeal to certain people.

  • Soonerliberty||

    Let's review the history: Slavery - Democrats, Segregation - Democrats, Nazism + Communism - crazy leftist racists. Hmm, you could, you know, umm, read a history book before calling the right racist. Would you call Frederick Douglas racist? Calling libertarians racist is like calling liberals, well, liberal.

  • Tony||

    Soonerliberty,

    You can't possibly be as dumb as you appear.

    Southern Democrats who resisted integration became Republicans. The Democrats became the liberal party, the Republicans the cradle of racists. This is the umpteenth time I've had to explain this on this site, and it's getting old. Take your shallow, dishonest semantic version of history and shove it somewhere.

    The Nazis were right wing. They were ANTI-communist nationalists, you idiot. You might have a point if you had mentioned Stalin, but it's interesting to note the similarities between the totalitarian states regardless of their underlying economic theories. Seems that however "left" or "right" economically they were, the important thing was that they were totalitarian, which is the exact antithesis of liberalism.

  • ||

    I don't deny that racists flocked to the republican party after the big government democrats realized that they could use race issues as a way to grab more power. However, it is hard to point to an overtly racist policy coming out of the republican party over the last 40 years. Simply being against affirmative action doesn't make one "racist."

    Saying that the Nazi's were "right wing" simply because they were nationalists is also a dumb argument. The Nazi's were for a subjugation of the free market for the purpose of advancing big government policies. Both wings of our the mainstream political spectrum do the same thing in this country today, but the dem's are the main cheerleader's of such policies.

  • ||

    Well are you a communist, or do you just believe that the state should provide for people? Because that's what Hitler believed. Just healthy Aryan people, but the government could "improve" them all they want. We literally disagree with ALL of Hitler's major positions. You, as a leftist, do not. Our point in this is not to call leftists Nazis, but to point out when we are called Nazis, that your positions are closer to Hitler's than ours.

  • Tony||

    JT,

    Wow, now that is truly impressive. Similarly, Hitler had a mustache, John Stossel has a mustache, therefore all libertarians are Hitler.

    QED

  • Keith Olbermann||

    All libertarians ARE Hitler - Jon Stewart told me so!

  • Frankyb||

    Oh oh! Let me had one! Special entitlements programs for minorities, because well, if we don't help these poor little fellaws, they won't be able to make it by themselves. But me? I'm white I don't need special help, I'm big boy, I can make it by myself in life. Mmmmmmmm - Democrats!

  • ||

    Well he basically surrendered to the left's bullying by flip-flopping on this issue. I don't have alot of confidence in a guy who can't state his principles or explain how his positions directly follow from his principles.

  • robc||

    1. What flip flop? He still opposes title 2. I mean, maybe he flip flopped on whether he would have let title 2 sway his vote on the entire CRA, but since he is unlikely to be transported back to 1964 AND elected to the Senate back then (what with him being constitutionally inelegible at 2 years old - even if his 30+ self time-traveled back, I would argue he was still 2) I dont think that detail matters.

    2. He stated his principles and explained them very clearly. Some people cant understand, is the problem.

  • Fixed||

    2. He stated his principles and explained them very clearly. Some Many people can't understand, is the problem.

  • Kiwi Dave||

    I would argue he was still 2

    I think I'd have to agree with you. Although in this unsual case the purpose of the age minimum in Section 3 would be irrelevant, as a matter of constitutional/statutory interpretation, you'd have to go by chronological birth date. This would suggest the need for a constitutional amendment.

  • robc||

    I think I'd have to agree with you. Although in this unsual case the purpose of the age minimum in Section 3 would be irrelevant, as a matter of constitutional/statutory interpretation, you'd have to go by chronological birth date. This would suggest the need for a constitutional amendment.

    Good reason why chronological birth date needs to be used. Lets take someone born in 1990, he is only 20 this year, so ineligible for the senate. However, he time travels somewhere, lives for 15 years, then travels back to now. He has "lived" for 35 years, is he now eligible? I would say no, because otherwise we would have to let anyone under age who claims to have time traveled for enough years run. I guess there are ways to test for age, but not sure they are accurate enough. Have to stick with chronological age, I would think. Even if that means allowing a 6 year old who time travels forward 25 years to run.

    BTW, this hypothetical is much more interesting than CRA votes.

  • NorthPope||

    You could cut all candidates for office in half and count the rings to determine age. That would probably solve many of our problems.

  • ||

    Now that is a constitutional amendment that I could support!

  • cynical||

    Did he actually flip flop? I mean, you can be opposed to specific provisions of a law while recognizing that it does much more good than evil overall. I don't think he ever said "I wouldn't vote for CRA" or "I don't support CRA" or what have you. Maybe the strawman Rand and the real Rand have opposing views, but that's hardly the same thing.

    The fact is, people don't want to deal with complex viewpoints when a simplistic, reflexive answer is available. "Just say slavery."

  • Some Guy||

    If the CRA is wrong now, then it was still wrong in 1964. "But we don't need it anymore" doesn't change that, because you can just say it won't hurt anything by being there, then.

    Either you say it's a bad solution to a worse problem which is at least an acceptable answer, or you stick by your guns and adhere to principle.

  • Kroneborge||

    Yes, but you can argue that even if it was wrong then it was necessary. And not so now.

    In fact, you could even think about the CRA as temporary reperations (except of course that it wasn't temporary).

    If they had just gave a 25-50 year time frame, that would have probably been fine.

  • ||

    I give credit where credit is due, but faith in politicians is always a mistake. They should have to win you over anew every day.

    It's interesting how much people don't realize that government institutionalization of racism is what caused many of the problems. If the government hadn't done that, the strength of discrimination at the business level would've been dramatically weakened. Yes, plenty of racists would've acted the same way, but not everyone in the U.S. (or in the South) were rabid racists.

    Institutionalizing another type of discrimination also seems wrong. Is there nothing the government can't fuck up?

  • robc||

    This.

    Ive said before that I expect to be disappointed in any politician I support. Fortunately, its rare for the ones I support to get elected, so I can pretend they would have been perfect. But they arent. And if they are in office for a long time they will get just as corrupt as any other politician. Hopefully, before that point, they push things a bit in the correct direction.

  • Ray||

    Ron Paul force choked him wife and made her die of a "broken heart"?

  • tarran||

    I think this is ultimately a losing argument; it requires too sophisticated an understanding of political theory on the part of the voter - certainly few politician will adopt it as it goes against their self interest.

    The fact is that politicians benefit from the way the CRA & other legislation for social engineering expand the amount of the economy that is brought into the government sphere of control. This legislation unlocks the door to vast riches for a legislator since they gain the power to ruin many businesses and organizations, and can use that power to wrest concessions, favors or even payoffs from an expanded portion of the populace.

    Thus few legislators are willing to risk the gravy train that the CRA established for them by working against it.

    As for the populace, most of them are too busy living their lives or too disinterested in political theory to spend the time digesting a nuanced argument or looking beyond the demagoguery of mass media.

    That being said, the argument must be made, repeatedly.

    I had a similar argument with some Mass liberal co-workers. I carried the day with my soundbite: "You hate adultery but you don't want to make it illegal, why?"

    Wonderful teacheable moment.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I had a similar argument with some Mass liberal co-workers. I carried the day with my soundbite: "You hate adultery but you don't want to make it illegal, why?"


    Here is a more relevant example.

    A black dude operates a hot dog cart. A Nazi nithing walks by, sees who is behind the hot dog cart, and says, "I don't buy hot dogs from niggers." He then walks his merry way.

    No law prohibits that.

    And yet, if it was the Nazi nithing behind the hot dog cart and the black dude is walking by, it would be illegal under Title II of the CRA for the nithing to say, "I don't sell hot dogs to niggers."

    Why is the latter illegal but the former is not?

  • ||

    Uh...because people gotta eat?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Uh...because people gotta eat?


    People also gotta earn money to eat.

    Are not hot dog vendors who happen to be black being deprived of money by Nazi nithings who do not buy hot dogs from black people?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Wow, I've never encountered such a bulletproof argument!

    People don't need to eat hot dogs. And they're not entitled to the hot dogs they do not own. You're not clever.

  • ||

    But somebody is legally required to serve somebody that they do not want to serve? That sounds a little bit like slavery. Of course you'll argue that they are being compensated for their labor at the market price, but to me that sounds like the argument used to defend eminent domain abuse.

  • ||

    So people have to take food by force?

  • The Supreme Court||

    Why is the latter illegal but the former is not?

    Because we say so.

  • Ernie the Bear||

    Congress can't pass a law that will make Mr. Skinhead like blacks. They can, however, micro-regulate hot dog contents so that no one ever wants to eat one. Then they can pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for solving the "Problem of bigoted hot dog vendors". Under the Commerce Clause! Yea!

  • Untermensch||

    Rand's response to Maddow when she asked him the money question, whether his position wouldn't lead to the return of segregation, should have been along these lines:

    Rachel, I'm sorry you have so little faith in the American people that you think the only thing standing between them and troglodyte racism is the law. I prefer to believe in an America where people do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because they are forced to do so. So, no, I don't believe for a moment that even if we removed all the Federal law on civil rights that we would return to that abhorrent regime. Remember that those who fought for the changes you rightfully celebrate did so despite the law being against them and it was they who forced the government to catch up with them. I'm sorry to see that you think we live in a world where it takes government to make us good, and I don't believe in that world.

    The would have stopped the conversation right there in his favor.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    He should have told Ms. Maddow that he'd answer her questions on discrimination and selective hiring practices when her network, MSNBC, added a black person to their line up of hosts and anchors.

    Nothing as white as the MSNBC evening line up.

  • jacob||

    +100

  • BakedPenguin||

    That was my line of thinking, too. "So, Rachel, you think Americans are nothing but racists?"

  • ||

    Maybe Rand didn't feel like pointing out the obvious...

  • ||

    She probably does. But then she would have been forced to say so, and probably in a way that insulted the people of Kentucky, who will vote for Rand or his opponent.

    Point scored: Rand Paul.

    That's what campaigning is about. Scoring enough points to win. It might make some people sick, but trying to explain the fine points of libertarian theory to a Rachel Maddow, a shrill leftie whose style can make Sean Hannity look like an intellectual, is NOT what campaigning is about.

    Basketball game =/= Hamlet
    Statewide Campaign =/= LP Convention (or, in Rand Paul's case, CP Convention -- GACK)

  • ||

    So if you think murder should be illegal it means you think all Americans are murderers?

    Interesting logic...

  • Untermensch||

    Dan T, why are you lecturing others on logic when you don't get a basic principle of logic: that comparisons must be valid for the results to tell you anything. Your comparison isn't valid at all, unless you can argue that someone excluding me from their business because of my Laplander heritage is equivalent to them murdering me.

    Maddow's rather explicit argument (and one I thought even you would understand) was that if we repealed the CRA that we would end up back at Jim Crow and segregated lunch counters. The only working assumption that makes that a possible conclusion is that governmental regulation is the only thing keeping that from happening.

    So the valid comparison is not the one you made at all. Rather it would be to ask if we thought that the only thing that keeps us all from turning into murderers is the law and that if we repealed laws against murder we would all turn into murders. I don't believe in that world: I am not that nihilistic in my outlook.

    So you are responding to the argument in your head, not the one I made. Intellectual onanism at its finest.

  • Butts Wagner||

    Except the boilerplate response to this would be "You're so naive." and attacking Rand's intelligence and awareness of the world.

  • Untermensch||

    I don't think it would stick in this case. Because all he has to ask her is how many people does she know who would patronize such businesses and not boycott/picket them. I doubt she knows anyone personally who would. I know *I* don't know any who would, even among my older, racist relatives. They might grumble about the Spics, Kikes, and Darkies, but it wouldn't make them go find a place that is segregated: it wouldn't be worth their bother. So the cost to resegregate today would be so high compared to the miniscule number of open racists who support such businesses that it would destroy them.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    Why shouldn't Morehouse University, and other historical black colleges, be allowed to discriminate and serve only black people if they wish to do so?

    Morehouse has 3000 students. Only 8 of them are white. Why bother?

    Dr. Paul is sticking up for Morehouse's freedom to educate whomever they wish to educate.

  • Lord Ballsac||

    Unfortunately, that line of thought won't play in the cosmopolitan cities, where would be ignored and even welcomed because of their "past sins". Minority businesses and organizations can discriminate all they want in the Liberal's eyes as they pretend the CRA does not apply to everyone. Funny thing though, if the Korean and Vietnemese restaurants I frequent kicked out the majority of their customers based on race, they would go belly up faster than a drowning footless diabetic. An anecdote: I have witnessed Palestinians straight off the boat sell street-side food to Hasidic Jews in New York. Sometimes the color of green keeps people from being irrational.

  • ||

    Rand Paul doesn't give a shit about Morehouse, don't be such a Paultard.

  • robc||

    It doesnt matter if he gives a shit about Morehouse or not. The principle applies to everyone.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Oh god here we go:

    IT BEGINS

  • CaptainSmartass||

    Why are people even debating the CRA of 1964? It makes no sense, it's not ever going to come up for renewal or debate. So why did Paul open this door in the first place? It seems like an incredibly short-sighted and naive thing to have done. For that alone, I hope he never gets anywhere near the Senate. Xenu only knows what other damage he could cause with that kind of power.

  • ||

    He didn't bring it up, Maddow did. As for the CRA, you're right, it's not going to be brought up for renewal or debate, so the fact that Paul has some philosophical doubts about it and is going to be the new Senator from Kentucky (and he will get elected - in that state dubious accusation of racism from Daily Kos type liberals are anything but an electoral albatross) is not going to cause the return of Jim Crow. Despite my political disagreements with him I respect the hell out of Jim Clyburn for the courage with which he fought a repugnant racist regime, but I think his youthful experiences are clouding his judgment, and he couldn't be more wrong on this issue.

    We already have plenty of theocons, neocons, liberals, populists, etc. causing all sorts of damage in the Senate. Why not a libertarian who's actually willing to speak up for property rights even if it gets him in political hot water?

  • Mo||

    False. Robert Siegel asked him about it. Siegel asked him about his opposition to the ADA and if he applied the same logic to the CRA. He got the Maddow interview because of those comments.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....=126985068

  • robc||

    The Courier Journal also asked him about it. Not sure if pre or post Siegel. Why was there no national outrage over that? (Hint: it was pre-primary)

    Either way, Maddow brought it up that day, each interview is an independent trial. Thus, Maddow brought it up.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Clyburn did good work back in the day, but his bald-faced lying about Rand's motives is a pitiful sop to the liberal base.

  • ||

    I don't think that Paul's presence in the Senate would be unusually scary. Look who is there now!

    The point is, if something will NOT be an issue within the next 6 years, then it's STUPID to make it a campaign issue, unless you think your constituents are stupid. Of course, maybe they ARE stupid. I'll let the pollsters work on that one.

    But seriously, if you're campaigning on Roe v. Wade or CRA64, that's about as stupid as campaigning on whether the US should enter World War I. I doubt that Rand Paul is a racist in any way. But issues at hand right now are the supply of energy, two ongoing wars, the national debt, social security going in the red before most Baby Boomers have even begun to retire, the War on (some) Drugs that has become a real shooting war, the Nork/Iran "Axis of Evil" that is quite real even if the name was silly, a lack of real bottom-up economic growth for an extended period, high resulting unemployment...

  • anarch||

    People have been debating the revelation to Muhammad, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the Creation, and their implications, longer than that.

  • Your Mom's Labia||

    Well, first of all it was Maddow that pursued the question because she did her "research" and found in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry, that Libertarians value property rights and by extension, accept good and bad behavior as long as no one's property is damaged against their will. This type of logic leads to opposition to ideas that people should be FORCED to associate. Unfortunately for Paul and Libertarians, when applied to the Civil Rights Act, the public-school educated troglodytes of this country instantly see racism and shut off before they are exposed to the thrust of the argument. The smart and smarmy pandering reply Paul should have given was "The Civil Rights Act was a landmark (Liberals love that word) piece of legislation that did a lot of good" and left it at that. He didn't need to bring up his principled opposition to a fraction of the CRA's provisions, despite its arguable validity.

    As an aspiring politician he could have weaseled his way out of cornering himself while not giving up the ghost, but that's not what Libertarian-ish people do. It's also why our creed is completely screwed on the national stage because it's easy to make us seem like prostitue-fuckin' racists and/or drug-loving hippies to the illiterate MTV watching dumb fucks that surrounded us. In short, Maddow is a bitch who could care less about real issues and facts while Paul (much like his father) has been branded a racist because he's not a savvy unprincipled piece of shit politician. Well, not yet anyway.

  • ||

    i couldnt have said that last paragraph better.

    I believe it was either Mises or Rothbard who wished to see cities have their own unique and individual governments that would satisfy the wants of its local citizens. Obviously you go to a state like Utah and visitors raise a fuss about its strict alcohol consumption laws and usually wont return but the government began to loosen up those laws to curb that negative image.

    As well I wish the best for Detroit. The city has a unique oppuritnity to restructure itself in a way that fits the citizens desires and income levels. Will the citizens make an individual effort to clean up and rebuild? Only time will tell but in my honest opinion I dont think they will pull it off for a number of reasons.

  • ||

    While libertarian-leaning politicians might not be doing well at the present, the libertarian message has great opportunity to reach a large portion of the populace. I, myself, was a warmongering neocon, reading National Review Online religiously every day. A few years ago, I started reading fee.org, which led to mises.org, which led to a variety of libertarian websites. Previously, I would have said something along the lines of what you complain: "They have some good ideas, but mostly they're kooks who are hooked on the issue of mj legalisation."
    But the power of ideas resides in the truth they contain. I now maintain the libertarian position (actually, I'm now a Christian Anarcho-Capitalist, but I'm not so hard-core as to call those who wish for limited government "statists"). Exposure to libertarian philosophy may not persuade others as readily as it did myself, but exposure will certainly bring people to begin to face the falsity of their own ideas.

    I believe capture of the culture is more important than capture of Congress; getting libertarians into Hollywood would be more productive than getting them into the governor's office.

    So, my recommendation is to vote for libertarian politicians to buy some time, but believe in the power of the message itself to persuade, and look for ways to increase its exposure.

  • MJL||

    One of the best comments I've read in quite a while. Thanks.

  • nekoxgirl||

    "Why are people even debating the CRA of 1964?"

    Because racism is the wedge liberals can use to keep left-leaning libertarians and right-lean libertarians apart. Also, it keeps blacks voting Democrat by margins of something like 95%.

  • Bill C||

    John Stossel has been great on this:
    http://stossel.blogs.foxbusine.....n-stossel/ and
    http://stossel.blogs.foxbusine.....ul- /

    Donate (see name) to Rand Paul to support a genuine believer in property rights

  • ||

    Except don't donate because Rand Paul is anti-immigration.

  • Mo||

    He's also a drug warrior and would have the federal government restrict abortion. Just because his name is Paul doesn't mean he's a libertarian. In fact, Paul has said he's not a libertarian.

  • robc||

    would have the federal government restrict abortion

    False. He would have the federal government not prevent the states from having laws restrict abortion.

    If you dont understand the difference you are as much an idiot as the people who dont get his position on Title 2.

  • Mo||

    "I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term."

    So who's the idiot?

    http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/abortion-2/

  • robc||

    You are.

    1. An Amendment isnt at the federal level. The constitution is a level above the federal level, it creates the FED governement, so is, by definition, not federal.

    2. The Life at Conception Act doesnt end abortion. It merely defines when life begins. States would then have the choice to outlaw it or not.

  • robc||

    BTW, I went to his site and read that exact section before I posted to make sure I was correct. So, quoting something at me that I just read seems pretty stupid.

  • ||

    Did you read the part where he said I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion? I think that justifies the claim that he would have the federal government restrict abortion--because if anyone offered legislation restricting abortion at the federal level, he's just explained that he would vote for it. That's not only evidence of his opposition to abortion, it's evidence of his inconsistency on federalism.

  • Mo||

    1) The federal government enforces the constitution, it is not a different level.

    2) The Life at Conception Act states, "(1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING- The terms ‘human person’ and ‘human being’ include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, cloning, and other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being." So that states that any form of birth control that prevents implantation is illegal. And if you thing the government regulates what people can do to their own bodies now, it'll be a lot worse for any female after that passes.

  • CaptainSmartass||

    1. An Amendment isnt at the federal level. The constitution is a level above the federal level, it creates the FED governement, so is, by definition, not federal.

    Nice hair splitting.

    If life officially begins at conception, then no law against abortion is needed as laws against murder would then apply. And we would instantly have a situation where someone with no conscious thought would have power over a person who does have conscious thought, which would go against several millennia of established common law. So nice try with the backdoor outlawing of abortion but it ain't gonna happen.

  • cynical||

    States would have the ability not to ban something defined at the constitutional level as murder? Wouldn't that be considered some sort of indirect violation of the 14th amendment?

  • robc||

    Responding to 3 posts here:

    defined at the constitutional level

    Its an act, not a constitutional amendment. It doesnt define murder, it defines life. States make many exceptions for taking life that arent murder (self defense, defense of others, he needed killin, etc).

    Nice hair splitting.

    Thanks, thats what I was going for. I almost pointed it out originally, but decided to bam! anyone who responded instead.

    If life officially begins at conception

    According to the Feds. States dont have to adopt that definition.

    So that states that any form of birth control that prevents implantation is illegal.

    It states nothing of the sort. If defines life. Application of the definition would be left to other laws.

    The federal government enforces the constitution, it is not a different level.

    Yes it is. Constitution CREATES the fed gov to enforce it, its an entirely different level. As it takes the states to amend the constitution, the levels go as follows:

    States
    Constitution creating union of states
    Federal government created by con

  • Mo||

    According to the Feds. States dont have to adopt that definition.

    Yes they do.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

    Also, there are federal murder statutes as well. Thanks to expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause, pretty much every abortion would qualify since some medical devices are made in different states.

    You also ignore Paul's statement that he will "always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion". So he doesn't care about federalism in this case.

  • robc||

    Also, why do you oppose laws against murder? I mean, if you an anarchist, I get it, but assuming you favor any sort of government, laws against murder (at the state level) seem appropriate.

    And defining murder seems reasonable to leave to the states too.

  • doofus||

    Huh? States can define murder? I fear you may actually be serious.

  • robc||

    States can define murder? I fear you may actually be serious.

    Every single state defines murder. All have exceptions for different types of killin'. The exceptions are not the same across the 50 states.

  • Soonerliberty||

    It's called the 10th Amendment. Criminal law falls to the states, except for federal offenses. Murder is not a federal offense, except in cases of assassinations of federal officials. You might want to understand what you're talking about before criticizing.

  • ||

    You must have missed this:
    Rachel Maddow Show Busts New York Times for Misquoting Rand Paul ...
    May 22, 2010 ... Stop the presses: a fill-in for Rachel Maddow on Friday actually busted the New York Times for misquoting Rand Paul in its article about the ...
    newsbusters.org/.../rachel-maddow-show-busts-new-york-times-misquoting-rand-paul -

  • anarch||

    If a religious person denies self-ownership, holding instead that only the Creator owns persons (evinced in God's, or God's Nature, always eventually reclaiming them), does that compromise the doctrine of natural rights?

    After all, no one other than the designated possessor is entitled unpermitted ownership, use, or even access to any other property on loan.

  • dean||

    I like how Larken Rose puts it - In Defense of Bigots

  • Mo||

    The precedent has encouraged an assault on freedom of association, as illustrated by demands that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Christian student groups, and online dating services adopt gay-friendly policies.

    Last I checked, the BSA is still allowed to exclude atheists and homosexuals. Same with eHarmony. And the controversy re: Christian student groups is whether they can receive university funds and discriminate, not whether they can exist and discriminate. If you only exclude government funds from financing organizations that discriminate, you'll run into the exact same problem re: public universities paying for Christian groups that exclude homosexuals.

  • Mike||

    Also, most of the controversy surrounding the BSA is that they claim private organization protections whenever discrimination comes up, but receive exclusive benefits from government agencies. Among other things, they can camp for free on US military bases and hold perpetual congress-granted ownership on the word "scout."

  • ||

    Damn you've beaten me to everything I was going to say! I guess you've been watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit! too?

  • robc||

    Thats not a problem with the BSA, thats a problem with the government. The BSA has an absolute right to assembly, whether they receive government funds or not. Whether the government chooses to fund them isnt their problem.

  • Mo||

    If the BSA acted like Amex and turned down the money, than it wouldn't be an issue. Then they could discriminate until the cows came home.

  • Mike||

    By getting special government treatment, you're starting to blur the lines between a public and private entity.

    Personally I would be *completely* happy if their exclusive benefits became open to all groups who want to do camping and stuff, so the boy scouts can go discriminate all they want and other, more open groups can have a chance of getting off the group. Anyone trying to start an alternative "scouting" troop has a really uphill battle, given the special treatment BSA receives and the fact that they will sue you into oblivion if you even vaguely mention the idea of "scouting."

  • Mike||

    The fact is: the BSA are not a "private" organization in any meaningful sense of the word. They enjoy state-granted advantages that spring from the fruits of taking property from private individuals by force (taxes). So you are saying it's OK that they are party to the taking of property of people they exclude from participating in their group? That's vile and runs counter to the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. If an enterprise is supported by tax money, at the very least it must be open to all who (potentially) pay taxes. Disappointed that Sullum seems oblivious to this aspect of the discussion.

  • robc||

    Im not saying I agree with it, Im saying the BSA as a private org has the right to follow their own rules. The fact that they receive government money doesnt change anything, the government is the problem for funding them.

  • cynical||

    The problem is that the government is increasingly able to use its influence to disadvantage those who fail to take its funds, thus essentially punishing them regardless.

    Consider the most extreme case, where the government simply takes the vast majority of what you make, then gives it back to you with the caveat that you must sacrifice many of your freedoms to do so. There has to be some sort of limitation on this.

  • ||

    How about a Christian photography studio that refuses to accept the business of same-sex couples?

    The New Mexico courts fined the studio $6,000 for violating anti-discrimination laws:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....d=91486340

    http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/jun/photography.pdf

    This seems to me to be a natural outgrowth of the idea behind CRA, even though it was a state law that busted the Christian Photographer.

  • Colin||

    Perhaps Clyburn should take a look at the guy who's already in the Senate -- a guy who was not only a Klan member, but filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

    A guy in his own effin' party.

  • Anonymous||

    This was a solid article up until the last four paragraphs. Attempting to tie in things like smoking bans to the '64 Civil Rights Act because they "blurred the distinction between public and private property" is hopeless handwaving.

    Is there any evidence that the city councils and state legislatures are using that Act in particular as their precedent, instead of, say, any of the numerous state and city ordinances concerning restaurant/bar safety or tobacco usage which also "blur the distinction between public and private property?" Find me some primary sources (from the lawmakers, not from some idiot on a blog) making that argument, and you might have the makings of a case. As it is, you're just obviously scrounging for any old dreck to fling at the "more sophisticated" criticisms (which happen to be correct).

    Any libertarian would agree that there have been an almost endless multitude of laws which encroach on the freedom of private citizens to do what they want with their businesses, many of which were far older than the '64 CRA. It didn't start the blurring, nor did it make some sweeping extension of it to all corners of ownership; it was very obviously targeted at racial leveling in view of the historical oppression of blacks.

  • ||

    I don't understand the "self-ownership" concept. Do we own ourselves from the moment of birth? If so, it seems that parents have no right to make choices (i.e., be vaccinated) for their children, nor the legal responsibility to support them. If we don't own ourselves from the moment of our birth, what is the event or status that triggers self-ownership?

  • ||

    Being responsible for your offspring and "owning" them are two different things. It is dishonest to conflate the two.

  • Captain Profit||

    Read how Rothbard addresses your exact concerns here: http://books.google.com/books?.....p;f;=false

  • ||

    Thanks, Captain Profit. Rothbard doesn't think parents have a legal responsibility to support children and should legally be allowed to let an infant starve to death. And mothers can sell their children, since the infants are her property. That's pretty hardcore.

  • ||

    Sometimes people need to stand up for principle.

    Rothbard is right.

  • robc||

    Birth? You own yourself much earlier than that (although Im not going to debate the exact moment).

  • CaptainSmartass||

    You own yourself once you're able to make responsible decisions for yourself. There are no rights without responsibilities, someone who is incapable of making rational decisions cannot be entrusted with the full rights other human beings possess. So your parents "own" you until you reach your majority.

  • naarg||

    Parse, as you can probably guess, the logical result you get from the purest and simplest forms of libertarianism, is quite awful. It is similar to Anarchy, which doesn't work because it assumes people are something they aren't, and forces equations on them they cannot satisfy.

    People are not born as "complete" persons. If someone chooses to engage in actions that they know will result in the creation of a sapient entity, then they are obligated to care for that being (or finding someone willing to care) until it reaches a reasonable level of maturity. When humans reach that level of maturity differs, but is generally regarded as between 12-16 (16 seems to most prudent from my observations). Until then, the parents must choose what they think is best for the child's wellbeing, even if they child isn't so cooperative. Parents will make mistakes, but that is part of being human.

    Basically, in my view, the only "positive" right someone can ever claim on someone, is the child's right to be raised to maturity by the people that brought it into the world.

    The biggest difficulty with libertarianism, is figuring out what few exceptions to make to the simple and elegant logic of freedom people dream up. That is something you'll have to wrestle with yourself.

  • ||

    Tangentially, I hate "hate crimes" and think the notion is flawed in its conception and wrong headed in every possible way. That being said, has a black person in this country ever been convicted of a "hate crime" against a white person? I think the notion of race is idiotic and it has exhausted any usefulness it ever had, if it had any, but the hypocrisy of those who promote racial consciousness is sickening.

  • ||

    That being said, has a black person in this country ever been convicted of a "hate crime" against a white person?

    Yes.

  • robc||

    Not 100% sure, but I think the hate crimes laws have been applied to more black on white crime than the other way around.

  • marlok||

    Just make sure to tell the judge that you killed out of love and not hate. It was a "love crime" not a "hate crime".

  • ||

    I thought every crime was a hate crime. Except for "crimes of passion" I suppose.

  • Wegie||

    The left will beat Rand with the racism card and no one on the right will help him....believe it!

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Off Topic...

    You guys seeing that hot brunette sproting conservative T-shirts in the banner ads? Is that Kate Beckinsale? How should I go about getting her pregnant?

  • Duke of Typos||

    sproting = sporting

  • Barry Loberfeld||

    Please forgive the length. From here:

    We must point out that "discrimination" originally referred to the bias, not of individuals in their private dealings, but of government in its defense of the life, liberty, and property of all people (in other words: political equality). That's because Jim Crow was not a social custom but a political system.Here we come to the reality that the Left cannot face. Ever since the Sixties, the Left has spun the line that racism is the outgrowth of "capitalism." Without government controls, bigotry will germinate from every square inch of the open society. However, it is a theory of racism that is falsified by the practice of racism. Almost without exception, the history of racism is a history of statism, i.e., of government imposition of racism on society. From the American South to Nazi Germany to apartheid-era South Africa, it is government that (directly or through indifference) murders people because of their race, establishes segregated economic and cultural institutions, criminalizes interracial sexuality and marriage, and in general is responsible for almost every image that comes to mind when we speak of racism. If bigotry is the natural reflex of the social masses, why have racists always had to turn to the State to keep people of different races from teaching each other, hiring each other, marrying each other, and basically living together as members of the same society? Indeed, if there is an organic relationship between racism and capitalism, then history's greatest racist should also have been its greatest capitalist. Our textbooks would record how Adolf Hitler and his National Capitalist Party created the ultimate racist regime by implementing completely the libertarian free-market agenda: an unregulated economy, freedom of expression, freedom of sexuality, private education, open borders, equality before the law, anti-militarism, etc. Of course, actual National Socialist policy was the polar opposite on every point. Hitler chose totalitarian socialism (that is, total socialism) as the means to his racist end because he understood what every other racist has always understood: that mass bigotry is "socialist," not capitalist — statist, not societal — in nature. Our anti-discrimination laws were not a response to a history of market bias, but a deduction from the tenets of Leftist dogma, which now seeks to redeem the ideology of statism by placing the blame for bigotry on the American people. Thus, when a Michael Eric Dyson preaches that racism is "America's original sin," we must remember that the vision of a virtuous elite taking control of a villainous society that the Left brings to this issue, is the vision that the Left brings (and has always brought) to every issue.

  • ||

    Wow...who would have guessed that it would be Rand Paul of all people who killed Libertarianism?

    You'd think his daddy would have taught him that in politics, you don't want to be too dadgum honest.

  • Lord Ballsac||

    Honesty is anathema to people who claim they want to "control costs" and "bring the troops home" but do nothing of the sort. Your aversion to it is not surprising.

  • Dan T.||

    No, I applaud Rand Paul - it's good that he's let us all know that he is basically a racist like his old man before he actually gets elected.

    I'm just saying when you hold such an extreme view it's not good political strategy to let people know about it.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    No, I applaud Rand Paul - it's good that he's let us all know that he is basically a racist like his old man before he actually gets elected.


    He is as racist as the ACLU.

  • ||

    Answer honestly. Do you honestly not see a distinction between private and public property? Between private views and public policy? Do you honestly not see a distinction between the right to hold whatever views you choose however repugnant and government enforced discrimination? I would rather see people be honest and just flat out say they oppose liberty and private property than pretend they are they hold a principled position of any sort. No honest person can say that supporting a person's right to do what they wish with their own property and to do business with whom they wish is in any way equivalent to racism.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Prove his racism, Dan. Show your work. And remember: Cut'n'pasting from MediaMatters/etc. is not "proof".

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Who would have guessed it'd have been conservative Republican Rand Paul that gave libertarians such a boost?
    Thanks, guy.

  • ||

    Rand Paul seems like a complete and total jerk dude.

    Lou
    www.complete-anonymity.at.tc

  • ||

    As someone else pointed out a few days back, it's a waste of time arguing principles with people who don't have any. Most of the people pissing themselves over Rand Paul fall into that category; they're not interested in principles. They want what they want, they want it right fucking now, they want it for free, and they absolutely don't care what has to be done or what moral principles have to be violated to get it.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    I think that is the most lucid assessment of the disturbed wasp's nest this non-issue has riled up.

  • Michael Ejercito||

  • ||

    You're defending Rand Paul? Next you'll be defending Lew Rockwell! What's the world coming to? LOL!

  • ||

    To be honest, I have little to no faith that Rand won't disappoint and be just another politician. If he doesn't pander to the right, I'd be amazed.

    See: Tester, John.

    Tester started out making a lot of the right noises, and he voted the right my way on a few freedom related issues. But he's obviously a fast learner, and has been grabbing goodies from the cookie jar with both hands, and making damn sure the citizens of Montana know about it.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And just for the record, I find Rand Paul's principled stand against certain aspects of the CRA to be substantively different from the race-baiting in his dad's old newsletters.
    Unfortunately, his dad's (Rockwell's?) diatribes allow Rand to be painted with the "apple from the tree" brush.

  • ||

    Libertarians frighten both sides of the political isle because its the people saying "hello fed this time I dont need your help, as a matter of fact I'll take it over from here"

    Libertarian, the word that makes the establishment's blood boil, makes the establishment start huffing and puffing.

    Look at interviews with Ron Paul and Judd Gregg on Financial reform. Gregg gets so worked up at Ron Paul.

  • nekoxgirl||

    That's because both liberals and conservatives have gone so far down the rabbit hole of statism, anything else seems like insanity.

  • ||

    I'm disturbed that having reservations about government involvement in private interactions is automatically equated with racism. Most of us here oppose most if not all affirmative action. Does that make us racists? Yes, I know it would get us the label, but does anyone really believe that?

    For all the handwringing, I bet there isn't one writer or commentator who really believes Paul is racist or didn't get that he was trying to be nuanced. Thus we see the level of political discourse in this country. Huh, huh, huh, you said "job."

  • Tim||

    Does that make us racists?

    They've gotten inside your head.

  • ||

    No, no, that was really a rhetorical question. I know I'm no racist, regardless of what tar someone might want to throw on me.

  • ||

    I'm disturbed that having reservations about government involvement in private interactions is automatically equated with racism.

    How is an interaction between multiple parties "private"?

    Not to mention that if two people sign a contract and one does not adhere to it then suddenly this whole idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in business goes out the window.

  • ||

    Multiple parties = government? I don't even understand that. Should the government be running my church, then?

    If someone enters into a contract, it is enforceable in the courts. It can also be enforced, depending on the terms of the agreement, through private arbitration.

    I'm a minarchist and don't have fundamental objections to the court system, flawed though it is.

  • ||

    So your contention is that sex is public? It's an interaction between multiple parties.

  • cynical||

    'How is an interaction between multiple parties "private"?'

    So, I take it you support restrictions on sodomy? Or does it have to be a full-on orgy before you oppose keeping the government out of the bedroom?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Not to mention that if two people sign a contract and one does not adhere to it then suddenly this whole idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in business goes out the window.


    This is true, and without it, modern capitalism would collapse.

    This does not imply that there is any duty to offer a contract in the first place .

  • qwerty||

    How is an interaction between multiple parties "private"?

    The threesome I had last night was definitely private. Sorry you weren't invited.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    The threesome I had last night was definitely private. Sorry you weren't invited.

    His mom was though. That whore loves the DP.

  • MSNBC||

    Pro Libertate: "Most of us here oppose most if not all affirmative action. Does that make us racists? Yes"

  • ||

    First they tar you, then they cover you with feathers.

  • kreminitly||

    Kentucky, home of:

    Horse racing, great lawn seed, and come January 2011, a Lib Dem U.S. senator. Just wait. Pauls just getting started. He's gonna put on a size 13 boot and shove it in his mouth everyday from now until november.

  • PicassoIII||

    Actually Conway is not THAT liberal, in fact. He's 'tough on crime' (cyber in particular) and a drug warrior. The Greens aren't gonna like him much either, you don't get elected from KY being anti coal.

  • kreminitly||

    We'll see. Whatever he may be, he's not gonna have to spend a lot of time running to the center when he's got the Rand Paul comedy show, aka, Dorf on elected office, running almost constantly. Like the man said to Stephanopolous, "when does my honeymoon start?". My god, what a dope.

  • PicassoIII||

    Yeah, that's the part i don't get. It's like he's doubled down on all of daddy's missteps. I think the margin of victory went to his head.
    Dude it's just the primary ...

  • PicassoIII||

    This, as usual calls for the obligatory link to Raimondo's defense of RON vis-à-vis racism.
    http://www.takimag.com/site/ar....._ron_paul/

    Why is the Reason staff as a group defending RAND this time round?
    Dunno, don't care...

  • PicassoIII||

    Speaking of bigotry, someone should remind Mad Rachel that the liberals need to get their house in order too.

    Did she forget who voted for Prop 8 (CA gay marriage ban) in addition to those icky white xtian rethuglicans.

  • PicassoIII||

    Ain't identity politics a bitch..

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Ain't Rachel Maddow a Bitch...

  • Beelzebud||

    Stay classy, libertarian friend.

  • ChrisO||

    James Clyburn, along with the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus, has made a very good living off of the racism industry. He certainly doesn't want that to stop. Take that into account when considering whatever he says.

  • ||

    The boy scouts receive federal funding. It's reasonable to demand they do not discriminate.

  • ||

    I have to say that there's nothing quite as funny as finding so much imbecility on website trading under the name "Reason"!... Even more pathetic is the woeful scholasticism that passes for logic from too many people who post here.
    Libertarianism isn't a "philosophy" _ nothing based on thinking as shoddy as that displayed by Rand Paul can be called a Philosophy except may be in a Monty Python sketch. Here we have Libertarians prattling on about property and its sanctity when we know that Slaves were considered property not too long ago. Here we have Libertarians waffling on about the beauty of the market when it was an Economic imperative that established the market in slaves... it was an economic imperative that led to construction of all those ships and the death of all those millions of people in the Atlantic crossing ... THAT WAS THE MARKET! I bet a libertarian in those days would have been defending both the property (SLAVES) and the economic activity (SLAVERY), after all it was engaged in by both Black Africans and White Europeans... so what would a Libertatrian possibly complain about? On what basis would a libertarian have sued for a halt to the Slave Trade?
    You all tell us that a person should be free to do what he wants with his property... well can a man sleep with his dog? What argument has a libertarian to stop a man having sex with his dog, or inflicting unnecessary pain on his horse, or killing off rare wildlife on an island he owns? Is there a Libertatrian answer to those questions.
    Rand Paul is in trouble because a) his basic, so-called, philosophy is infantile, shoddy and full of holes... he naively presumes that humanity acts mainly rationally. Not true. (b) He stupidly thinks that Racism and Xenophobia are just one of those things. The Nazi's knew different. The Southern politicians of the days of yore knew different. The Hutus in Rwanda know different. The Boers in South Africa know different.... In fact any one with a brain who can read a book recognises and fairly trembles before the malign and awesome force that is the manipulation of Race by politicians of all types . You'd think that in 2010 everyone would know this... but hell no! Not Libertarians!!
    The absurdity of someone arguing that Blacks in America should have waited for the market to erode Jim Crowe! The market??!! Do you guys even listen to yourselves? Crazy...

  • ChrisO||

    There's nothing quite so funny as leftist trolls who bash libertarianism while obviously having no understanding of it.

  • PicassoIII||

    Um, Johnny ... meet a civil war era libertarian.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner
    Oddly enough a leading abolitionist.
    *feigns shock*

  • PicassoIII||

  • ||

    This place is just riddled with the shoddiest and sloppiest thinking. I'm not asking you for some guy who believed that the United States constitution outlawed slavery... that argument is moot. Some of the founders were entirely comfortable slave owners... so your post about what any individual may have thought is utterly irrelevant. In fact the more Libertarian argument has always lain with the confederacy when it comes to slavery.

    What I want to know is the mechanism, the intellectual framework if you like, that would have given a libertarian of the sort that believes in the sanctity of private property and the wisdom of the free market above all else that enables a critique of an arguably vital economic activity like the Slave trade. Lysander Spooner doesn't even begin to solve your problem.

  • PicassoIII||

    The intellectual framework?
    *sigh*
    1st principles: Initiation of force, non aggression. The american slaves were FORCED into slavery, therefore it is wrong. Private property includes one's own body ... duh.
    In the extreme, someone selling themselves into slavery is OTOH ok. See libertarians having no beef with prostitution and associated institutions.
    And you're right Spooner actually advocated that the southern states had the 'right' to secede.
    That said he supported both the semi statist compensated empancipation solution or open revolt by slaves and their supporters.
    Both would have been better solutions than the civil war growth of executive power and the delayed justice of forced tolerance via reconstruction. Which of course reverting to state codified Jim Crow for almost a century.

  • PicassoIII||

    Oh yeah, some founders were slave owners. Yes, they kicked that can down the road. BUT, Franklin freed his pretty early and Jefferson upon his death.
    And lets not forget Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union 1st and the EP could have just as well considered a ploy to win more or less.
    There's plenty of primary sources that indicate he did not consider blacks as equals.

  • Untermensch||

    Don't feed the trolls, but…

    Do you really think government is the only thing that keeps us human? Would you do any of the things you described if there were no government to keep you from doing them? If not, do you really think you are the lone exception and that everyone else around you is depraved and ready to do these things? If not, why do you think these things would happen?

    You cite a lot of examples in which force was applied to unfavored groups, without realizing that they did these things under the color of government. Nazism succeeded because it was enforced by a government. Apartheid succeeded because it was enforced by a government. The Rwandan genocide used the mechanisms of the state and outside government sat by and did nothing while it happened. If government were the answer, why did government fail in all the cases you cite?

    The market is only as good as the people in it, that is true, but do you somehow believe government is better than the people in it? That's magical thinking. Slavery succeeded only because the power of governments kept it in place: Dred Scott de facto forced slavery upon places that didn't want it. Navy ships protected slave vessels, and government forces kept those who would have freed slaves at bay. Slavery existed within a governmental context. If you didn't have the threat of force (or the protection of those who would have used force against slaves) to keep them on the plantation, they would have left. A free market in which everyone is the owner of himself would have ended slavery in a hurry, but you have government interfering to prop up something that a market would not have supported.

    There are answers to all your points that you somehow think will devastate Libertarians (are you really stupid enough to think that we somehow could skate through life and never consider these things?). Just because you, in the ten minutes you took to write your rant, couldn't conceive of answers does not mean they don't exist. That, my histrionic friend, is the infantile philosophy of someone who can't conceive that others might have something to offer. Your entire first paragraph could apply to what you wrote, and the second sentence especially applies to yourself.

  • ||

    *Here we have Libertarians prattling on about property and its sanctity when we know that Slaves were considered property not too long ago.*

    Slavery violates the self-ownership principle that is a foundational belief of libertarianism. Libertarians oppose slavery on this basis.

    *What argument has a libertarian to stop a man having sex with his dog, or inflicting unnecessary pain on his horse, or killing off rare wildlife on an island he owns?*

    Unless the man is a hermit working a subsistence farm, he must face social pressures that will guide his behavior. Why come up with extreme examples of bad behavior anyway? I believe that most people, if left to themselves, would act in a rational manner, based on how they perceive their circumstances. On the other hand, government-worshippers have a hard time realizing that there are other forms of pressure than government coercion.

    It's astounding to me that the ONLY solution to racial discrimination in the private sector was government sending in the guns.

    There could be no alternative, like tax breaks for businesses that register to be non-segregated firms (and willingly undergo periodic inspections to verify). No, it HAD to be aggressive force to solve this problem.


    *The absurdity of someone arguing that Blacks in America should have waited for the market to erode Jim Crowe! The market??!!*

    The market was already doing so. Woolworth's desegregated its lunch counters in the South four years before CRA was passed. And yes, I know that Woolworth's was a national chain, and so had to consider repercussions in its stores outside the South, but those Northern and Western stores were presumably profitable during the era of segregated lunch counters, so it must not have been that big a deal to customers there that lunch counters in the South were segregated. The only absurdity I see is the idea that government can effect a solution to problems that are purely benign in intent and effect..

  • kreminitly||

    Sure, we have an answer. But anybody who leaves a 450 word screed in a comment section is just a weinee, and so we're not gonna give it to you.

  • ||

    I have to say that there's nothing quite as funny as finding so much imbecility on website trading under the name "Reason"!

    DRINK!

  • ||

    Hypothetical question: Joe Racist works for XYZ, inc. When the company is purchased by a black man, Joe Racist quits because he doesn't want to work for a black man.

    Joe Racist opens a cafe and vows only to serve non-minorities. He doesn't want to work for minorities.

    The question: If the second case requires government intervention to force Joe Racist to accept income streams from people with which he wants no association, should the first case result in government force to make Joe Racist work for XYZ, inc. again?

  • ||

    "Rand Paul deserves credit for pointing out that we cannot abridge the freedom of those we despise without endangering our own freedom."

    --Gee, it sure is great to have the freedom to choose any business I like and contract for whatever I see fit. Like hospitals and medical care, which should always be private.
    --You betcha.
    --Great, I'm choosing to give my business to a hospital that meets the market demand for abortion.
    --I'm sorry ma'am, we've outlawed those.
    --But I've been raped!
    --You should have thought of that before you got raped.
    --Well, can I at least see a doctor about my baby? Sign some paperwork in case there are any medical emergencies that might affect me or the baby, and have someone make decisions on my behalf?
    --That would be the smart thing to do.
    --Great, let me get my female life-partner a pen.
    --Oh, I'm sorry, we don't allow same-sex partnerships.
    --Well can I contract to adopt, and find a guardian to ensure my little baby has a loving home and parents and is taken care of for the rest of her life?
    --Of course, I'm pro-family. The government should stay out of family matters.
    --Great, let me just call my friends Peggy and Susan.
    --Um, we don't allow lesbians to adopt, either.
    --Jesus Christ! What kind of Libertarian are you?
    --The evangelical Republican kind.
    --Are you sure that makes you a Libertarian?
    --But I must be, I love guns and capitalism.
    --So do Republicans.
    --Look, lady, it says right here, my name is Rand.
    --But I thought that was short for Randal.
    --NEXT!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    jcalton +100

  • ||

    *Great, I'm choosing to give my business to a hospital that meets the market demand for abortion.
    --I'm sorry ma'am, we've outlawed those.
    --But I've been raped!*

    This seems to me a straw man argument, for most anti-abortion legislation that I've read about make exception for rape, incest, or the life (but not necessarily the "health") of the mother.

    *Oh, I'm sorry, we don't allow same-sex partnerships.*

    Allowing same-sex partnerships, and allowing said partnerships to be called "marriage" are two separate issues. Personally, I reject the notion that government should be involved in marriage at all. Like this guy:
    http://www.usavsus.info/US-MarriageLicense.htm

    I can see the irritation that results when faced with someone claiming the title of "libertarian", but then supporting government intervention to maintain various social conservative issues; and call Rand Paul on it, by all means.

    Meanwhile, it's being reported that U.S. FedGov debt is topping $13 trillion. When facing economic armageddon, it seems to me that Rand Paul would be a better choice than his Democrat opponent.

  • ||

    Thank you, Cavalier973, I also happen to concur that gov't should not be involved in marriage at all. The quickest way to "defend" marriage is to keep gov't away from it.

    Randal Paul does not support the choice to have (or provide) abortions, even in the case of rape, so it is not a straw man argument. As you say, I am basically "calling Rand Paul on it." Moreso Reason and Libertarians in general, than Paul himself, though.

    I lament seeing people at Reason holding him up as a bastion of Libertarianism or using Libertarian policy/beliefs to critically evaluate some of the things he said, but NOT others, such as homosexuality, abortion, closed borders, etc.

    If someone likes him, they like him, that's fine, or if they recognize the bad along with the good and will take what they can get, okay, but let's be cautious about making out of him something he is not.

    If we are going to hold his beliefs to a Libertarian standard, then we should do so for all of them.

  • jacob||

    I support Ron and Rand Paul 100%, but I gotta tip my hat to this post.

  • ||

    *Slavery violates the self-ownership principle that is a foundational belief of libertarianism. Libertarians oppose slavery on this basis.*

    What does self ownership mean?? Is that even a serious philosophical position??? Does a dog have a ‘self’ because it clearly has a consciousness and is aware? Does a Chimpanzee? _ since we know that they have highly evolved social organisations, feel pain and even mourn their dead? Are telling me that Libertarianism is willing to intervene when an owner of an animal is inflicting pain on it? Or oppose the destruction of a living mammal’s habitat because the said mammal is self aware? Whither the private property argument then?? I’m sorry but this is all too typical of the woolly thinking that Libertarians indulge in… for your information at the time of Slavery even the Catholic church said that Blacks were only 3/5ths human, I‘m not gonna even begin to get into what some of the Protestants were saying. In those circumstances what argument, internal to Libertarianism, would you use to oppose a slave trade that ticks all the boxes that get libertarians hard… private property and free markets. That’s what I’m interested to find out from you… You don’t have one do you?

    What's the point of ‘self ownership’ (what an absurd form of words) if your ideology justifies the denial of quality housing, the denial of loans, the denial of decent education, the denial of fair commerce and the denial of decent jobs to an oppressed minority on the basis property rights? What the fuck is your absurd notion of ‘self ownership’ worth if the individual is denied the opportunity for self actualisation? You people can’t think… You’re all bellyaching about the CRA but you want us to believe that you’d have opposed a slave trade that was dealing “legitimately” in “goods” that were only 3/5ths human. Likely story.

    I believe that most people, if left to themselves, would act in a rational manner, based on how they perceive their circumstances. On the other hand, government-worshippers have a hard time realizing that there are other forms of pressure than government coercion.
    It's astounding to me that the ONLY solution to racial discrimination in the private sector was government sending in the guns.
    There could be no alternative, like tax breaks for businesses that register to be non-segregated firms (and willingly undergo periodic inspections to verify). No, it HAD to be aggressive force to solve this problem.

    To be honest I’m really beginning to feel sorry for you at this point. No one can be this naïve, surely. Bestiality is not rational behaviour, that’s the point. Neither is racism. Both happen frequently nonetheless… the only difference between them is that you’re squeamish about one and indifferent about the other. The point is that people are compelled by all sorts reasons, some psychological, some societal and some just inexplicable, to behave in all sorts of ways… yet you say that what one does on his private property is no one else’s business. So a man can happily have sex with his dog and slash his horse with a razor in your Dystopian moral universe and no one has the right to say boo to him because - according to your so called philosophy - he paid for the dog and horse, he is on his private property and he is not harming another human being. That is where your thinking leads… is it not? Your stuff about the people around him and social sanctions is just so much hogwash. You’re argument is that if they decide to leave him alone for whatever reason.. It’d be A_OK

    **The market was already doing so. Woolworth's desegregated its lunch counters in the South four years before CRA was passed. And yes, I know that Woolworth's was a national chain, and so had to consider repercussions in its stores outside the South, but those Northern and Western stores were presumably profitable during the era of segregated lunch counters, so it must not have been that big a deal to customers there that lunch counters in the South were segregated. The only absurdity I see is the idea that government can effect a solution to problems that are purely benign in intent and effect..
    reply to this **
    The naivety in your post is breathtaking… Woolworths desegregated because the Freedom riders put them under pressure… pressure you libertarians oppose on the basis that the protesters we’re trespassing on private property. The market wouldn’t have done diddlysquat. Left to you Redlining, blockbusting, unfair housing, segregated Schools, and God knows what else, will still be a reality. And you know it!

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Self-ownership means we aren't owned by the state. Sorry, but "duh" has to be said after that.

  • Untermensch||

    Johnny, your reading comprehension is astonishingly low, but then the incoherence of your posts should clue us in that the input side of the equation is probably not much better than the output. Normally I wouldn't make fun of someone for posting grammatical and rhetorical drivel, but most of your questions have been addressed above and you choose to ignore the answers and then proclaim that we have none.

    But this one deserves a serious response:

    What's the point of ‘self ownership’ (what an absurd form of words) if your ideology justifies the denial of quality housing, the denial of loans, the denial of decent education, the denial of fair commerce and the denial of decent jobs to an oppressed minority on the basis property rights?

    If you don't own yourself (not an absurd choice of words, but a rather serious philosophical claim), then who does? Does the State own me? Does my family own me? If I do not “own” myself (even allowing for it to be a metaphorical sense of ownership) then someone else must and that someone (or something else) has claim upon what I do by right. There is a name for that arrangement: slavery.

    You obviously have missed the point that government abrogated the rights you talked about prior to the CRA: As a white man you could not provide those kinds of services to a black man, no matter whether you wanted to or not. Jim Crow governments made laws about that because people were doing the sorts of things you seem to believe they would not have done and some people didn't like it. If nobody in an undistorted market had wanted to do those, Jim Crow's legal regimen would not have existed. The market was providing those things and government stopped it from happening.

    Had racists not had the power to thwart the market, there would have been strong pressure to end segregation from the market, yet you can't seem to get it through your head that maybe Jim Crow wasn't some sort of libertarian paradise (remember it was Southern Progressives who created it, not libertarians): you can't pin this one on libertarians when libertarian principles of self ownership, freedom of association, and so forth were the ones used to assail the legal basis of Jim Crow.

    Because you don't have a clue at all what libertarian principles are, your attacks on them are utterly unconvincing to anyone here. There are criticisms to be made of libertarianism (as of all movements) and many of us understand the limitations of the philosophy. But when you barge in with drivel like this full of straw men and flat out false assertions about what we believe, is it any wonder that you don't get serious answers from most people? It would be like me wandering into Daily Kos (or wherever you hang out) and yelling "Socialists. Stalinists. People who hate success."

  • DDavis||

    Thank you for making the obvious case. I wish Rand Paul would do the same.

  • Untermensch||

    Left to you Redlining, blockbusting, unfair housing, segregated Schools, and God knows what else, will still be a reality. And you know it!

    Pardon me, but bullshit. Just bullshit. None of us know any such thing. It is only your fantasy libertarians who don't believe what real libertarians do who "know" any such thing. I might as well say that you know that Pol Pot was right...

    You haven't read or understood anything here if you can write that paragraph with a straight face. That statement alone shows that you have nothing serious to add to the conversation. Why should any of us bother to explain the answers to you when they have been addressed in detail above and you simply chose to ignore them? You have not refuted those arguments at all, merely ignored them and then made one of the most asinine statements possible.

    Let us be specific: How could segregated schools have existed if the government had not enforced that they be segregated (before it changed its mind and said that they could not be)? Any libertarian first principles include pretty high up in the list that all are equal before the law. If all are equal before the law, then segregation of government services is ipso facto illegal.

    I don't know why I'm even bothering to answer your rants since clearly you have no desire to engage in any discourse that does not involve you telling us what we really believe. Heaven forbid you might actually learn something from another human being.

  • ||

    **Had racists not had the power to thwart the market, there would have been strong pressure to end segregation from the market, yet you can't seem to get it through your head that maybe Jim Crow wasn't some sort of libertarian paradise (remember it was Southern Progressives who created it, not libertarians): you can't pin this one on libertarians when libertarian principles of self ownership, freedom of association, and so forth were the ones used to assail the legal basis of Jim Crow.**

    All you guys do is make assertions based on an article of faith that just prattles on about free markets. Jim Crow was the codification of widely accepted cultural practices... it didn't drop out of the sky fully formed. THAT'S THE POINT! It was from the bottom up not the top down. No one is pinning anything on you Libertarians ... I'm merely asking the question... in a situation where the entire culture is corrupt and is oppressing a minority what is the internal mechanism in libertarianism for correcting the situation. Your argument boils down to letting the people suffer whilst "nature" in the form of the all knowing market takes its course. That is monstrous to anyone with a smidgeon of moral fibre.

    Your other mantra is the 'belief' in man's innate rationality... a kind of naive faith that man would do the right thing. That isn't thinking, it's religion. What empirical evidence do you have from history of any group giving up its privileges without being forced to do so? By your reckoning the the founders ought to have waited for nature to take its course with the British crown in the Americas... or does your philosophy not apply to the white oppressed too. Your forefathers shouldn't have fought they ought to have waited for the market...

  • ||

    For Johnny:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

    "Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to be the exclusive controller of her or his own body and life."

    Self-Ownership: Also known as the rights to life, liberty, and property (or the work of pursuing happiness).

    As a Christian, I believe that self ownership is a right granted by God; but one needn't be a theist to subscribe to the idea.

    A dog does not have self-ownership because it (apparently) does not have moral accountability, or the capacity to conduct philosophical inquiry. It cannot determine between right and wrong.

    Private property is the secondmost human right after life, in my opinion. If a person is secure in his property ownership, then all other rights cannot be denied, because at the very least he can retreat onto his land and be safe from anyone seeking to abrogate, say, his right to believe whatever religion or worldview he desires.

    The idea I think you are missing is that while Joe Racist and his "whites only" cafe is not really harming the minorities he excludes; he is practicing no form of aggression except perhaps to expel those he considers to be trespassing, who themselves are committing an act of aggression by trespassing.

    As an aside, suppose that Joe Racist is a black man, and his cafe refuses service to white people? Does the CRA apply in that case?

    If not, then you should admit you avocate separate standards of justice, based on race. If the CRA DOES apply to a black Joe Racist, then it seems to me you want the goverment to force a black man to work for a white man. Talk about turning the clock back....

    One further thing: in my opinion, making the argument that without government coercing white businesses to serve minorities that the minorities will suffer absolute deprivation is itself based on racism--the "soft bigotry of low expectations." It apparently assumes that blacks and other minorities are too incompetent to provide their own cafes, hotels, gas stations, etc.

    Consider this fellow:
    http://www.tnstate.edu/library.....urchrs.htm

  • ||

    I'm sorry but your self-ownership thingy is worthless as philosophy except you're willing to actually define what "self" means... having done that you then have to give the grounds on which this this 'self' can come to wholly own itself and what its relationship is to the other 'selfs' that it encounters... in other words what is the epistemological and ontological meaning of your notion of "self ownership" and how does it apply to other sentient creatures such as higher mammals as they clearly possess 'selves' too. Or you might just as well concede that your whole thing is just movement for saying in effect.. "I've got mine, fuck you". If you're even remotely serious about "self ownership" it cannot just mean that Government doesn't own you it has to go farther... not even a Communist believed that the government OWNED any individual.

    But none of you dare take it farther because you'd invariably run into a conflict with your other shibboleth... private ownership!

  • ||

    For Johnny (part 2):

    The Jim Crow laws were transplanted to the South from the North during Reconstruction; the Northern versions of Jim Crow were in some cases harsher than that implemented in the South (Illinois basically told all blacks to get out of the state). The assumption that Southerners were racist against blacks "just because" does not resonate. It makes more sense that racism was born of a couple of things: 1. Racist arguments were adopted in attempt to justify Slavery in a society that aspired to be democratic, and 2. Racism was an outgrowth of resentment Southern whites felt toward blacks for collaborating with or otherwise benefitting from the Northern occupation. Southern culture has a suspicion of outsiders and a long memory of trangressions built into it from centuries prior to the Civil War (back in the Scottish borderlands); check out "Albion's Seed" by David Fischer--it will explain a lot about why Americans from different regions think and act the way they do.

  • ||

    Johnny: it is interesting that you deny the concept of self ownership and still claim that blacks were hurt by being denied services in white-owned businesses. If African-Americans did not own themselves, then they had no right to demand equal treatment from either government or private parties.

  • ||

    Cavalier... there's no evidence that you've thought anything you say through. Man is part of a continuum... he is not apart from it

    Your definition of self ownership doesn't say anything about anyone else apart from you... it expresses no wider concern. In fact by your definition if I'm strongest person in town there really can't be a any constraint on me if I perceive such constraints as there may be as impediments... after all I own my self and i'm stronger than everyone else? What within the definition you've given stops my own self expression destroying or denying any ones else's 'self'?

    Your thing about a Dog is pathetic. So because a dog cannot tell right from wrong, according to you, its OK for its owner to have sex with it, right? Does the same apply to mentally subnormal human being then? Is libertarianism OK with the abuse or even the sterilisation of the mentally subnormal... you see we're back to that troublesome definition of self again.

    Finally Christianity calls for us to love our neighbours as ourselves, it calls for us to be good Samaritans. it talks of the wonders of creation... Jesus himself went into the temple and drove out the money changers... it was a Christian imperative that drove the Civil Rights movements... you on the other hand would privilege your private property over your neighbours suffering. Don't talk to me about YOUR Christianity

  • ||

    Cavalier... I'm not interested in North versus south, Democrat versus Republican or any other thing that so exercises you people. I'm interested how libertarianism works as an ideology. That's it. And right you've confirmed everything I thought about it... it's nothing but a cover for some people on the Right to smoke dope and have loads of sex. It ain't a philosophy.... what it is is an affectation, a pose, shallow and content-less disguise.

    That I don't buy your woolly nonsense about self ownership doesn't in any way mean that I deny African Americans their innate humanity. I just don't buy the stupid notion of self ownership as its too limiting to even begin to account of the wonder of human existence... an existence with so many overlapping and enriching values that go waaaaaaaaay beyond any notion of self. Read your Bible.

  • ||

    **One further thing: in my opinion, making the argument that without government coercing white businesses to serve minorities that the minorities will suffer absolute deprivation is itself based on racism--the "soft bigotry of low expectations." It apparently assumes that blacks and other minorities are too incompetent to provide their own cafes, hotels, gas stations, etc.**

    Nonsense... you're arguing for separate but equal. That train has been and gone. We've lived that and no Christian in 2010 can possibly be blind to what the deleterious effects of separte but equal were, not if Christianity means anything....

  • ||

    Johnny:

    *Your definition of self ownership doesn't say anything about anyone else apart from you... it expresses no wider concern.*

    Unwittingly or deliberately you misunderstand the implications of self-ownership. Self-ownership is a right accorded to each individual. The non-aggression principle flows from it: no one is morally justified in practicing aggression against another because each person is in full possession of his own personhood.

    You mixed the message concerning the dog. I denied that a dog has the right of self-ownership. That doesn't give a human the right to have sex with the dog.

    You also do not understand the power of social pressures apart from government coercion. Family, church, neighborhoods all are social institutions that humans need to survive and thrive. Being cut off from any or all of these institutions because of bad behavior is a terrible consequence; it's indeed fatal for a person who lives in a society that relies on specialisation and trade to produce the necessities of life.

  • ||

    *Unwittingly or deliberately you misunderstand the implications of self-ownership. Self-ownership is a right accorded to each individual. The non-aggression principle flows from it: no one is morally justified in practicing aggression against another because each person is in full possession of his own personhood*.
    No one is justified in practicing aggression against another person… is that right? So you don’t consider refusing to sell a man goods that he has the money to buy on the sole basis of the colour of his skin an aggressive act? You really cling to a definition of an aggression that denies that racism is an act of aggression?? You call that logic and posit this notion on the forum of a magazine called reason?? That’s a joke, right?
    I’m sorry but there is no implicit (or explicit) expression of non-aggression in your definition of self ownership. In fact I find the entire concept to be utterly without any firm philosophic basis… what’s your definition of “self” and what does the idea of “ownership” entail? Care to tell me me….
    ***You mixed the message concerning the dog. I denied that a dog has the right of self-ownership. That doesn't give a human the right to have sex with the dog.
    You also do not understand the power of social pressures apart from government coercion. Family, church, neighborhoods all are social institutions that humans need to survive and thrive. Being cut off from any or all of these institutions because of bad behavior is a terrible consequence; it's indeed fatal for a person who lives in a society that relies on specialisation and trade to produce the necessities of life.***

    Your struggling with dog ownership question for one reason and one reason alone… you have a loopy definition of ownership.. every civilised culture in the world understands that the concept of ownership accords privileges as well as responsibilities… a dog owner is entitled to enjoy his dogs company and to discipline his pet within reason. There’s no notion of ownership that grants him the right to have sex with the animal for a whole load of obvious reasons that really ought to go without saying. But you can’t concede this point because if you do you’d have to concede that the same responsibilities that a dog owner owes the dog is no different from the entirely reasonable responsibilities that society places on a business owner towards his public. But you find yourself in hock to a ridiculous ideology that claims that it is an imposition and a danger to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of the most pathetic slippery slope fallacy ever conceived by man.
    I fully understand the power of social pressures… my point to you is this… what do you do when social pressure is leading to unfair, unjust and morally intolerable outcomes? THAT’S THE QUESTION THAT YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER.

  • ||

    *So you don’t consider refusing to sell a man goods that he has the money to buy on the sole basis of the colour of his skin an aggressive act?*

    Nope.

    aggression: the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like. any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment

    Refusing someone's money in exchange for goods or services is not using force against the individual.

    Forcing someone to do business is aggression, however.

  • ||

    *I fully understand the power of social pressures… my point to you is this… what do you do when social pressure is leading to unfair, unjust and morally intolerable outcomes?*

    You hire the government to go out and kill the oppressors, naturally. And their families, because the families probably learned bigotry from the patriarchs. Then you have the government kill anyone who looks at you funny, because they're probably bigots, too. Kill anyone who questions that killing bigots is morally right, because anyone who questions you is probably a bigot.

    That's the only way to acheive a just society that respects human rights.

  • ||

    Nope.
    aggression: the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like. any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment
    Refusing someone's money in exchange for goods or services is not using force against the individual.
    Forcing someone to do business is aggression, however.
    So according to Libertarians only a “STATE” can be aggressive. No wonder no one takes you seriously! You refuse a man the opportunity to conduct a commercial transaction on the basis of denying his very humanity… and that ain’t aggression! That is not offensive to the person against whom it was directed?? Wars have been fought for less. Stupid is as stupid does….

    Libertarianism is not a philosophy, its not an ideology, it not even a harmless affectation… it is idiocy masquerading as political thought… a fig leaf for morons who are scared but know not what they fear…

  • ||

    **You hire the government to go out and kill the oppressors, naturally. And their families, because the families probably learned bigotry from the patriarchs. Then you have the government kill anyone who looks at you funny, because they're probably bigots, too. Kill anyone who questions that killing bigots is morally right, because anyone who questions you is probably a bigot.

    That's the only way to acheive a just society that respects human rights.**

    You could do that or you could institute a law like the CRA... :-) Glad to be of help. Unlike a Libertarian I do believe in helping the needy and God knows that unreasonable rationalists posting on a magazine called "Reason" perfectly capture the very definition of the NEEDY

  • ||

    Or, do save money on guns, you could give tax breaks to businesses who register as non-segregated businesses. No coercion needed, see?

  • ||

    Johnny:

    However well you think you have argued, all along you have not been arguing with me, or with libertarian philosophy generally. You have been arguing with a straw man born of your fevered mind.

    Libertarian philosophy is the only one which allows for true human cooperation. Any other relies on brute force to build a utopia based on whatever creed currently holds political power.

    You claim to be interested in helping the needy, but you would rather rely on policies that actually create need rather than alleviate it.

    You claim that libertarian philosophy is a selfish one, yet you cannot see the selfishness inherent in a system of government coercion, where people can take from others without penalty because "everyone voted on it".

    Well, any other objections you may have will probably be restatements of things you have already said, and furthermore have already been answered in this article and in the responses to it.

    Try this:
    http://townhall.com/columnists.....ments=true

  • Christian Louboutin||

  • ปลวก||

    You claim to be interested in helping the needy, but you would rather rely on policies that actually create need rather than alleviate it.

  • RAN||

    You claim to be interested in helping the needy, but you would rather rely on policies that actually create need rather than alleviate it. | RAN ran ran แรน แรน แรน |

  • SEO||

    Well, any other objections you may have will probably be restatements of things you have already said, and furthermore have already been answered in this article and in the responses to it.

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    ThaNk U

  • ทัวร์ลาว||

    Thank u

  • ทัวร์ลาว||

    Thank u

  • A||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement