1 Bed, 1 Bath, No Meat

|

Prashant Kothari has some interesting comments on a Wall Street Journal article on vegetarians-only apartment buildings in Bombay [Mumbai]. Of course, libertarians will all say there's nothing wrong with this… but I'm wondering what a Green, for instance, would make of it. Is "economic coercion" less offensive in a good cause?

NEXT: This Here Rubber Duck Revisited

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.

  1. Is “economic coercion” less offensive in a good cause?

    Of course. Economic coercion, via boycotts, is one of the main weapons of the Greens. Regulation, another form of coercion, is another.

    They have no problem with coercion, economic or otherwise. They are collectivists, and therefor statists. Without coercion, they would have nothing.

  2. They have no problem with coercion, economic or otherwise.

    No, no, no, don’t be silly. Economic coercion is when you make a Green or green-favored identity group pay the actual cost to do something. Creating communities is when a Green does something they like to other people, preferably making you pay for it.

  3. Do you think they’d mind my leather couch?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.