Gay/Lesbian Issues

We Can Oppose Bigotry Without Politicians

Should bigots be allowed to exclude gays or blacks? They should be stopped-not by the state, but by nonviolent social action.

|

Should the government coercively sanction business owners who, out of apparent religious conviction, refuse to serve particular customers?

While such behavior is repugnant, the refusal to serve someone because of his or her race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation is nevertheless an exercise of self-ownership and freedom of nonassociation. It is both nonviolent and nonviolative of other people's rights. If we are truly to embrace freedom of association, logically we must also embrace freedom of nonassociation. The test of one's commitment to freedom of association, like freedom of speech, is whether one sticks by it even when the content repulses.

But does this mean that private individuals may not peacefully sanction businesses that invidiously discriminate against would-be customers?

No! They may, and they should. Boycotts, publicity, ostracism, and other noncoercive measures are also constituents of freedom of association.

So why do many people assume that the only remedy for anything bad—including bads that involve no physical force—is state action, which always entails the threat of violence? Are we really so powerless to deal with repulsive but nonviolent conduct unless politicians act on our behalf?

As everyone knows, the Arizona legislature passed—and now the governor has vetoed—a bill that would have amended the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which holds that even a seemingly religiously neutral law may not "substantially burden" the exercise of religion in the absence of a "compelling government interest" and a less-restrictive method of advancing that interest.

SB 1062 (PDF) was reportedly prompted by a New Mexico Supreme Court ruling in the case of a commercial photographer who, apparently on religious grounds, refused to take pictures at a same-sex civil-commitment ceremony. The court held that the state's RFRA does not apply in cases involving private individuals, that is, cases in which the government is not a party. Thus a private person or business owner accused of violating the prohibition on discrimination against designated protected group in public accommodations cannot invoke a religious exemption. ("Public accommodations" generally refers to businesses and government offices open to the general public.) Similar cases have arisen elsewhere.

The Arizona bill would have extended the RFRA to any "individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity." This was interpreted as legislation intended to permit anti-gay discrimination in public accommodations—and maybe it was—but the bill made no reference to sexual preference or gender identity. (Arizona law bans discrimination on the basis of race and sex, but not sexual orientation.) As the New York Times noted, "A range of critics—who included business leaders and figures in both national political parties—said it was broadly discriminatory and would have permitted all sorts of denials of service, allowing, say, a Muslim taxi driver to refuse to pick up a woman traveling solo."

What's an advocate of individual freedom, peaceful social cooperation, and tolerance to make of all this?

Right off, I'd ask how a "compelling state interest"—whatever that may be—could license  government to impose burdens, substantial or otherwise, on anyone's peaceful exercise of religion. The state is an organization of mere mortals who, by one dubious method or another, have been allowed to don the mantle of political legitimacy and to command obedience on pain of imprisonment even of those who never consented to the preposterous arrangement.

Next I'd ask why religion is the only consideration to be taken into account. Shouldn't the state also be restrained from burdening the exercise of secular convictions?

As Mario Rizzo of New York University wrote on Facebook,

The difficulty is that the law singled out an approved reason—religious—why someone could refuse his or her services to another person. The default used to be freedom of association and contract unless there was some very good countervailing reason. Now it seems that the default is you must behave according to "progressive" values or else. No one in Arizona would have been in danger of being deprived of vital services—the environment is competitive and people want to make money. It is totally unlike the old south. But, hey, no one has the interest in subtle distinctions about liberty.

When Rizzo says that "No one in Arizona would have been in danger of being deprived of vital services—the environment is competitive and people want to make money," he's referring to the fact that, unless government intervention protects bigoted business interests (as it did in the old South), markets will punish them and reward inclusive establishments.

Now the moment anyone says that government should have no power to prohibit business owners from discriminating in public accommodations, a progressive interlocutor will respond, "So a business should be allowed to refuse service to someone because the person is black or gay?"

To which I would say, No, the business should not be allowed to do that. But by "not be allowed," I mean that the rest of us should nonviolently impose costs on those who offend decency by humiliating persons by the refusal of service. As noted, this would include boycotts, publicity, and ostracism. The state should not be seen as a remedy, and considering that its essence is violence, it certainly should not punish  nonviolent conduct, however objectionable.

State prohibitions drive bigotry into the shadows, making private response more difficult. Would a Jewish couple want an anti-Semite photographing their wedding? Would a gay couple want a homophobe baking their cake? Moreover, legal prohibitions may cut both ways. Should a black photographer have to work the wedding of a white-supremacist couple? Shouldn't the thought of forced labor make us squirm?

Let intolerance be exposed to the daylight, where it can be shamed and ridiculed.

As I wrote in connection with the public-accommodations provision (Title II) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, private action is not only morally superior to government action, it is also more effective. Direct nonviolent social action

had been working several years before Title II was enacted. Beginning in 1960 sit-ins and other Gandhi-style confrontations were desegregating department-store lunch counters throughout the South. No laws had to be passed or repealed. Social pressure—the public shaming of bigots—was working.

Even earlier, during the 1950s, David Beito and Linda Royster Beito report in Black Maverick, black entrepreneur T.R.M. Howard led a boycott of national gasoline companies that forced their franchisees to allow blacks to use the restrooms from which they had long been barred.

It is sometimes argued that Title II was an efficient remedy because it affected all businesses in one fell swoop. But the social movement was also efficient: whole groups of offenders would relent at one time after an intense sit-in campaign. There was no need to win over one lunch counter at a time.

Title II, in other words, was unnecessary. But worse, it was detrimental. History's greatest victories for liberty were achieved not through lobbying, legislation, and litigation—not through legal briefs and philosophical treatises—but through the sort of direct "people's" struggle that marked the Middle Ages and beyond. [See also Thaddeus Russell's A Renegade History of the United States.] As a mentor of mine says, what is given like a gift can be more easily taken away, while what one secures for oneself by facing down power is less easily lost.

The social campaign for equality that was desegregating the South was transmogrified when it was diverted to Washington. Focus then shifted from the grassroots to a patronizing white political elite in Washington that had scurried to the front of the march and claimed leadership.…

We will never know how the original movement would have evolved—what independent mutual-aid institutions would have emerged—had that diversion not occurred.

In other words,

Libertarians need not shy away from the question, "Do you mean that whites should have been allowed to exclude blacks from their lunch counters?" Libertarians can answer proudly, "No. They should not have been allowed to do that. They should have been stopped—not by the State, which can't be trusted, but by nonviolent social action on behalf of equality."

The libertarian answer to bigotry is community organizing.

This column originally appeared at the Future of Freedom Foundation.

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.

347 responses to “We Can Oppose Bigotry Without Politicians

  1. Shouldn’t everybody be bigoted towards politicians?

    1. “Read the sign: ‘We reserve the right to refuse service to Chuck Schumer.’ “

      1. I hope you don’t operate a manziere store.

    2. What ever became of the right to freedom of association? The government should make no laws forcing anybody to do business with anybody against their will. At this point in the country’s history, the stupidity and immorality of racial, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination are matters that should be dealt with by means other than government coercion. Bigots should have the right to hold their beliefs every bit as much Ghandi did–and true libertarians would have no issue with that.

      1. Public accommodation is what happened.

        1. I get it, but we’re past that point now. We’ve answered evil with evil.

  2. Shouldn’t the thought of forced labor make us squirm?

    Forced labor is the natural result of positive rights, of course, so liberal would answer with a hearty, “I love it!”

    1. I run a part time BBQ catering business. I get along with most people from about all walks of life…….But if a full on Progressive Liberal Democrat wanted me to cook for them I would be too booked up and not available.

      If I don’t have the capacity on the day they want how can said “customer” demand I do the job.

      Business owners that are in the service world that wish to adhere to “principles” personal or otherwise need to learn this mind set, turn the job away by being too busy to “fit” them in.

  3. In this day and age, invoking Spooner’s Constitution of No Authority will get you a visit from the FBI, Mr. Richman.

  4. That’s a fine sentiment intellectually. In reality it will be less than effective. And if the government hadn’t stepped in 1960’s, many more lives, of mostly African Americans would have been lost. Maybe if more libertarians had lynchings being done to them and their families in the past, this ivory tower crap would have more credibility. After desegregation, students in many parts of the south didn’t go to school for years, black and poor white students. Public shaming? HA. T here would have to be a majority of people putting that pressure on the minority over time for that to work, and in the meanwhile, the ‘oppressed bigot’ and his or her allies would most certainly use violence to solve their problems. The fact that a state legislature tried to pass this bigoted law, for a means of legal discrimination is just depressing. Businesses have the right to refuse service to people for any other number of valid reasons, one of them being, just because.

    1. Of course, Jim Crow was government-imposed segregation.

      If not for government, there would have BEEN no stepping in to stop it, because the problem was created by the government in the first place.

      1. no the problem was created by over 200 years of slavery, and complicit founders of the constitution who were slave owners. I am not defending Jim Crow laws, but the alternative would not have been a utopia of shiny happy people.

        1. I wrote something similar below, so here’s a paraphrase. I really like the way that Walter Williams puts it. Basically: if discrimination in the Jim Crow era was so popular, why did they need to force people by law to cooperate with it?

          1. From my experience with bigots te largest majority of them are cowards who need a group to back them up. I believe that the reason Jim Crow laws existed was to allow them to pretend they had no choice in the matter when segregation and discrimination is what they prefered to do.

        2. Slavery was a government institution.

          In fact, there was a time when even if a slaveowner wanted to free his slaves he was prevented from doing so (by the government).

          Besides, slavery has nothing to do with a modern business owner’s prerogative in whom he serves. None of the actors involved were either slaves or slave owners. Unless you believe in some conferred guilt/victimhood via a sort of racial time travelling scheme.

          1. General, how was it a government institution? Which pre-civil war government? Do you mean the individual states?

            1. *tosses pocket constitution on Rufus’ desk*

              Read this

              1. I don’t think it answers the question to what General was alluding to!

                /spits on ground.

            2. That’s a good question. I heard it watching some history of slavery video and can’t find the video or a reference to these laws. I’d imagine it was a state law.

              1. Okay, I found it.

                The video was a Molyneux vid and the link above has the video, the transcript and the citations.

                There’s some interesting facts in the video that I didn’t know. For instance, most slaves were bought and sold by arabs, but there isn’t a large black population in middle eastern countries. Why? The arabs, sorta like the europeans to an extent, were hung (pun intended) on the averred sexual prowess of the africans and would therefore castrate all the male slaves. This, coupled with the brutal treatment female slaves endured made their lifespans in their new countries very short.

                It’s disgusting to think of all the lost human potential merely because of people’s laziness and brutality.

                1. Castrating slaves made no sense after 1808 when importation became illegal — a government interference with free trade that libertarians eschew — and slave breeding became a lucrative part of the plantation economy.

                  1. a government interference with free trade that libertarians eschew

                    There’s nothing “free” about slavery. Your argument is a red herring. A libertarian would oppose slavery on moral grounds in general.

                2. Thanks will look over.

                3. Female slaves were problem impregnated by their Arab owners. I suspect many Arabs have ‘Black’ ancestry. (I hesitate to use ‘African’ blood since many (most?) Arabs were in fact African to being with.)

            3. Slavery in the US was a colony and then state level institution that evolved from the practice of indentured servitude via some fucked up court rulings and legislation:

              In 1654, John Casor, a black indentured servant, was the first man to be declared a slave as a result of a civil case. He had claimed to an officer that his owner, free black colonist Anthony Johnson, had held him past his indenture term. A neighbor, Robert Parker told Johnson that if he did not release Casor, Parker would testify in court to this fact; under local laws, Johnson might have lost some of his headright lands. Under duress, Johnson freed Casor, who entered into a seven years’ indenture with Parker. Feeling cheated, Johnson sued Parker to repossess Casor. A Northampton County court ruled for Johnson, declaring that Parker illegally was detaining Casor from his rightful master who legally held him “for the duration of his life”.[9]

              1. Since persons with African origins were not English subjects by birth, they were considered foreigners and generally outside English Common Law. Elizabeth Key Grinstead, a mixed-race woman, successfully gained her freedom and that of her son in the Virginia courts in 1656 by making her case as the daughter of the free Englishman Thomas Key. She was also a baptized Christian. Her attorney and her son’s father was also an English subject, which may have helped her case.[10]

                Slaves on a South Carolina plantation (The Old Plantation, c. 1790)
                Shortly after the Elizabeth Key trial and similar challenges, in 1662 Virginia passed a law adopting the principle of partus sequitur ventrum (called partus, for short), stating that any children of an enslaved mother would take her status and be born into slavery, regardless if the father were a freeborn Englishman. This was a reversal of common law practice, which ruled that children of English subjects took the status of the father. The change institutionalized the power relationships between slaveowners and slave women, freed the white men from the legal responsibility to acknowledge or financially support their mixed-race children, and somewhat confined the open scandal of mixed-race children and miscegenation to within the slave quarters.

                1. The Virginia Slave codes of 1705 further defined as slaves those people imported from nations that were not Christian, as well as Native Americans who were sold to colonists by other Native Americans. This established the basis for the legal enslavement of any non-Christian foreigner. Colonists were forbidden from enslaving Native Americans.

                  1. Anyone that thinks about it for more than a few seconds will realize that slavery in the US must be a government sanctioned institution, otherwise the slave owner is prima facie guilty of kidnapping and assault.

                    The ‘slave’ would retain a right of self defense and be able to escape and or kill the owner with legal impunity. Not to mention that the government should protect his rights by prosecuting the slave owner.

                    1. Very interesting stuff, VG!

                    2. The ‘slave’ would retain a right of self defense and be able to escape and or kill the owner with legal impunity. Not to mention that the government should protect his rights by prosecuting the slave owner.

                      Bingo! Precisely the point I was trying to make downthread.

            4. In America, it started with a court ruling in Massachusetts.

            5. It was a US government institution.

          2. Again with this? If slavery was a government institution, so is land ownership.

            1. Right, because nobody ever erected a fence before the government told the they could.

              1. If I erect a fence around the empty lot that used to be an Arco station – does that mean that I now own that land?

              2. Right, because nobody ever erected a fence before the government told the they could.

                What happens when someone stronger than you knocks down your fence and claims the land as his own?

                1. Then they stole it. No one is saying slavery needs government to exist, so you can stop slaying that strawman. In America, slavery was a government-supported institution and was backed by force of law.

                  1. If it’s a government institution as sloopy claims, it ipso facto needs government to exist.

                2. Is Tulpa really one of the moral nihilists who believe that rights are the consequence of the power elites signing off on them, i.e. that they’re literally a case of might makes rights?

                  Self-evidently human beings have property in their own persons. Unless they sell that property–and depending on whether that property is legitimately alienable–it can’t be legitimately claimed by another person.

        3. *cough* the founders WIVES were slave owners.

          *cough*

          -FFM

        4. Who knows?

          There was obviously a majority who thought that such actions were bad from the fact that it passed as a law in the first place in a democracy, no?

          If State action were off the table, what would have happened? Perhaps desegregation would have been a bit slower, but I am of the belief that it would have worked better if it weren’t forced, just like so many other things in life. Let people come to their decisions on their own, and they stand by those decisions, force people and they do their best to circumvent the force.

          Without Jim Crow laws, I think there would be much less racism than there is today.

          1. To the last sentence, I mean the repeal of those laws to the opposite extreme, from forced racism, to forced “acceptance”.

      2. ^THIS. Somehow, shockingly, the statists who seem to argue that LBJ single-handedly ended racism in this country don’t like to make any reference to the fact that slavery itself existed as a function of laws made and enforced by the government, and Jim Crow refers to a system of *laws* enacted by state and local governments. Jeremiah and company seem to deliberately miss the point that, under Jim Crow, it was illegal to NOT be a racist, and a business owner serving blacks and whites at the same table could be fined and/or arrested.

        As for “ivory-tower crap”, one side of the argument believes that the best way to combat racism and other dumb ideas is to let people air those ideas out, try them on for size, and defend them against other, better ideas in a free environment; the other side believes that the best way to end bigotry is to make it illegal. Tell me which one sounds more unrealistic.

        Racism in the South had a lot to do with Reconstruction (another fantastic government policy), while in the Northeast it had a bit to do with blue-collar backlash against the Great Migration and subsequent competition for work, along with the usual repugnance you sometimes see when a monolithic community gets a sudden influx of newcomers with a different culture. History has proven that law failed to eliminate either of these problems, and where they have lessened or ended it has largely been the result of time and private effort.

        1. Racism in the South had a lot to do with Reconstruction

          You f-ing kidding me?

          Yeah — Southern race relations would have been a lot better if the Union had just gone back north and minded their own biz after freeing the slaves. Sure thing.

          1. Or we could have, you know, skipped the whole killing half a million people thing and let the south wither on the vine economically until it peacefully ended the ignoble institution, and the result might have been different than letting Sherman loose to salt the charred ground of the south and tell them “you’re welcome” for it.

            1. The slave economy sure as hell wasn’t withering in 1861, and wouldn’t have for the foreseeable future. Nice that you have such a cavalier attitude toward allowing people to live out their lives in the basest kind of oppression while you wait for the market to do its work.

              1. Yes, and we can be fairly certain that slavery would’ve continued indefinitely without armed intervention because of The example of Brazil, which had a similar commodity agricultural economy which was heavily dependent on slavery. As everyone knows, slavery is still legal in Brazil and will be until millions of brazilians die in a terrible Brazilian civil war.

                Waitwut?

                1. Brazil didn’t end slavery until 25 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, and then did so by an act of (undemocratic) government. A government that fell a year later largely due to a backlash from slaveholders.

                  And minor quibble, the US civil war death toll was in the hundreds of thousands, not millions.

                  1. Still, it was 750,000 out of total of 31 million. Maybe not millions, but it was 2% of the population

              2. Actually it kinda was, and after the south had seceded it would have economically isolated itself from its most important markets and distribution channels, which would have accelerated its collapse immensely. It probably would have taken less time for market forces to press the issue than it did for the civil war to slaughter 600,000 people. Trading one kind of oppression for another usually isn’t a good trade. But even if you were married to the idea of imposing at least some kind of violence on the south, trade embargoes were also a viable option – particularly after secession. But then that would presume that the purpose of the war was to end slavery, instead of preserving the sanctified perpetual union.

                1. after the south had seceded it would have economically isolated itself from its most important markets and distribution channels

                  Britain and France?

                  An embargo would have been unworkable, and there’s no way slavery collapses in 4 years as you seem to think.

                  1. Britain and France?

                    Who purchased most of the south’s exports goods at northern ports after they were shipped on northern railways…

                    An embargo would have been unworkable

                    If an embargo would have been unworkable, it’s a bit mysterious how the beleaguered north managed to win the war and decimate the south in the process. Could you maybe pick one narrative and stick with it?

                    1. Who purchased most of the south’s exports goods at northern ports after they were shipped on northern railways…

                      Under the pre-war regime, yes. If the South had gone its own way, and northern port access were blocked by your beloved embargo, they had plenty of ports in the south that could be adapted to accommodate international trade. Charleston, Tampa, New Orleans, Houston, Mobile, etc.

                      If an embargo would have been unworkable, it’s a bit mysterious how the beleaguered north managed to win the war and decimate the south in the process.

                      I can’t figure out how to make my alarm clock with the broken snooze button stop screeching in the morning, so it’s mysterious how I’m able to silence it with a sledgehammer.

                    2. If the South had gone its own way, and northern port access were blocked by your beloved embargo, they had plenty of ports in the south that could be adapted to accommodate international trade.

                      Lol, uh, sure, after about a decade’s worth of development, including building the entire transportation infrastructure from scratch, which would first require manufacturing capacity and automation the south largely lacked because its agrarian economy was based on unskilled slave labor. And mostly without capital too, since they would have lost access to northern financiers and the accompanying international banking infrastructure.

                      In the time it took the south to even gear up its manufacturing to start on the rail systems it would have needed it would have been bankrupt. That kinda played a big part in why they lost the fucking war, too.

                      I can’t figure out how to make my alarm clock with the broken snooze button stop screeching in the morning, so it’s mysterious how I’m able to silence it with a sledgehammer.

                      In order for that to be an analogy, you first must invent some differentiation between a military embargo and… a military embargo that somehow parallels the difference between your right hand and a sledge hammer. There isn’t one. The south got embargoed and shelled during the war. The same navy probably could have pulled off the embargo without the shelling.

                    3. Interesting that the North felt the need to blockade Southern ports and split the Confederacy in two along the Mississippi, when those ports were so useless for trade.

                      The South’s railroad infrastructure was far less developed than the North’s, granted, but it was still functional and could easily be expanded if it weren’t for, you know, having to repel an invading army which was actively trying to destroy that infrastructure.

                      The south got embargoed and shelled during the war. The same navy probably could have pulled off the embargo without the shelling.

                      You mean blockaded and shelled, and a blockade even by itself is an act of war. If you’re going to “let the south wither” you need to drop both.

                      An embargo is a totally different animal, similar to trade sanctions. I’m not sure what you mean by a “military embargo”, unless you mean blockade without saying “blockade”.

                    4. Interesting that the North felt the need to blockade Southern ports and split the Confederacy in two along the Mississippi, when those ports were so useless for trade.

                      Useless for trade and sufficient to support an export economy without assistance from the north are two completely different things. The south’s ports and transportation were insufficient to support its agrarian export economy, and the only way to remedy that situation in the event of a peaceful succession would have been by burying itself in debt and collapsing that way.

                      The South’s railroad infrastructure was far less developed than the North’s, granted, but it was still functional and could easily be expanded

                      Only with access to northern manufacturing and materials, which was kinda the point. The south’s rail infrastructure was insufficient, and its manufacturing infrastructure to make it sufficient was even more insufficient.

                      (cont’d)

                    5. An embargo is a totally different animal, similar to trade sanctions. I’m not sure what you mean by a “military embargo”, unless you mean blockade without saying “blockade”.

                      Yes, that’s what I meant. An embargo with no enforcement mechanism is kind of useless. Hence my preface of “But even if you were married to the idea of imposing at least some kind of violence on the south…”. An embargo enforced by a shipping blockade would have severely isolated the south economically without killing half a million people in a scorched earth ground war. So IF you were inclined to think violence was the answer, that would have the better type of violence to employ.

                    6. *secession, obviously.

                2. There’s also the possibility that fighting the civil war sped the end of slavery in the rest of the world.

                  In a counterfactual world slavery survived to the present day in the South as well as Brazil, the Caribbean and was expanding as a result of US victory in WWII.

                  1. In a counterfactual world slavery survived to the present day in the South as well as Brazil, the Caribbean and was expanding as a result of US victory in WWII.

                    If by “counterfactual” you mean “speculative satirical fiction”.

              3. It sure was withering. Slavery is about as inefficient a means of production as possible, and independent of its inefficiency, it also precludes industrialization and innovation.

                Anyone who was ever in the service knows full well how easy it is to execute forced labor (policing the grounds etc) as slowly as possible. Slaves were notorious for working slowly, and the slavers and everybody else knew it. There were debates at the various constitutional conventions how how may slaves equalled one free laborer.

                The south’s was already in bad shape; it would have fallen apart by 1900 and become a backwater begging to be readmitted to the union.

                1. and independent of its inefficiency, it also precludes industrialization and innovation.

                  No it doesn’t.

                  This is one of those flights of libertarian wishful thinking.

                  1. An impossible premise to test, of course, but the Civil War south is kind of exhibit A in the evidence in favor of it.

            2. This is another example of how people always ask the wrong question in this matter. The question isn’t “why did the U.S. have to fight a war to end slavery?” The Union didn’t go to war to end slavery, so it’s not even a pertinent question. The question is “Why were slaveowners in the South so freaked about the possibility of ending slavery that they seceded when a president who wasn’t even running on abolishing slavery, and didn’t have the power to do so anyways, was elected?” All comparisons to other countries are flawed because there was no other country where slaveowners held the sort of institutional power they had in the USA (specifically the Southern states) or CSA.

              1. The Union didn’t go to war to end slavery, so it’s not even a pertinent question.

                Good to see our previous debate had some positive outcome.

                The question is “Why were slaveowners in the South so freaked about the possibility of ending slavery that they seceded when a president who wasn’t even running on abolishing slavery, and didn’t have the power to do so anyways, was elected?”

                The other question is “why was the wife so freaked by her husband’s conversion to atheism that she filed for divorce”?

                1. “Good to see our previous debate had some positive outcome.”

                  What positive outcome? I never claimed that the Union invaded to end slavery. You didn’t change my mind on anything.

                  “The other question is “why was the wife so freaked by her husband’s conversion to atheism that she filed for divorce”?”

                  Your essentially restating my argument with an analogous situation. Southern slaveowners saw Lincoln’s election as something that signified that slavery would eventually be abolished because he wouldn’t allow it to be spread to the territories. The mere prospect of this frightened them so much that they seceded and went to war to protect their “right” to own people.

                  1. *You’re

                    1. The real question is, “can you be a Libertarian and argue that a slave state should continue to exist, even if it were for another five more minutes”. The answer to which I would say is “no”.

                      We Libertarians in the U.S. universally recognize the right of the Founders to use violence to overthrow their mildly tyrannical government. Slavery, being the worst example of tyranny, is even more deserving of that violence. So why is it that one government (the Crown) was deserving of having violence delivered on them, and another government (the CSA) who were even more hostile to liberty, should have been left to their own devices?

                      Would you argue that the colonists should have stayed peaceful in the hope that we were given our atonomy in the Empire, like our cousins to the north?

        2. The “racism was due to Reconstruction” argument is pure BS. There was a widespread belief in the antebellum South that black people were inherently inferior to white people and their natural state was one of enslavement to white people. It’s absurd to think this would have instantly vanished with the abolition of slavery, peaceful or not. Granting black people equal rights also would have been a massive blow to the political power of white people, given that black people were 40% of the total population in CSA states, and a majority in a few of them.

          Ultimately, the problem with Reconstruction is that it didn’t go nearly far enough and at the end of it, Southern states were given a free hand to enact oppressive and discriminatory laws in blatant violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

          1. you can’t pretend that the aftermath of the war did not incubate some bad feelings that stayed in place long after the shooting stopped. When you prosecution of a war includes razing every town, killing every man, even burning food stores, that’s not a recipe for good relations.

            Whites’ view that blacks were inferior was hardly confined to the South. While Jim Crow was not the official policy of the North, let’s not pretend an equivalent form of it was not in place.

            1. “you can’t pretend that the aftermath of the war did not incubate some bad feelings that stayed in place long after the shooting stopped.”

              Sure it did. I think that hatred would be more targeted towards northerners and Republicans than black people. Especially considering that white Southerners didn’t really need any reinforcement of their hatred and belief in the inferiority of black people. (Also, if you think the Civil War and Reconstruction somehow justify or explain Southern white resentment of black people and the North, do you apply that same logic to modern black resentment of white people, after 250 years of slavery and 100 years of segregation?)

              “Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.”

              Alexander Stephens, vice president of the CSA in his infamous “Cornerstone Speech.”

              “The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.”

              From the Georgia Declaration of the Causes of Secession (in reference to the Republican Party)

              1. Northeners weren’t around but blacks were and when people get mad about something, it’s not always a rational process. Displaced anger, yes, but anger nonetheless. And for the longest time afterwards, the South was as solidly Dem as San Francisco is today.

                I’m not saying Reconstruction justifies bad behavior, just that it helps to explain it. And yes, you could draw a parallel between it and lingering black hostility toward whites today. Surely you have not missed the recurring talk of reparations or the notion that whitey owes someone something.

                1. “Northeners weren’t around but blacks were and when people get mad about something, it’s not always a rational process. Displaced anger, yes, but anger nonetheless. And for the longest time afterwards, the South was as solidly Dem as San Francisco is today.”

                  It was solidly Dem before that too. Anger here is not relevant unless you’re arguing that it was responsible for the institutionalization of racism in the post-war South. I think any objective analysis of history shows this to not be the case.

                  “I’m not saying Reconstruction justifies bad behavior, just that it helps to explain it. And yes, you could draw a parallel between it and lingering black hostility toward whites today. Surely you have not missed the recurring talk of reparations or the notion that whitey owes someone something.”

                  Regarding the first part, I don’t really agree with that. I think I’ve presented a lot of evidence that Reconstruction was not the catalyst to Jim Crow, and that pre-existing beliefs in the inferiority of black people explain it much better. Shit, attempting to create legal equality between blacks and whites was one of, primary things about Reconstruction that pissed off white Southerners. In the end, Reconstruction was a failure because it did not go far enough and did not achieve the goal of legal equality between the races in the Southern states.

                  1. Anger here is not relevant unless you’re arguing that it was responsible for the institutionalization of racism in the post-war South.

                    Anger was not a necessary cause but it was sufficient. It’s easy to judge events of the 1860s in 2014 hindsight but it’s not helpful. The way things ended helped no one. There are stories of slaves going back to the plantation, not of love for the master but because it was all they knew. Blacks had no money, no property, no connections or contacts to help them transition; they had freedom but no clear idea what to do with it.

                    Whites not only lost everything, they were seen as the villains. Again, anger is often irrational but I get where they held the blacks they could see more responsible than far off Mr Lincoln or Union soldiers. Also, pre-existing attitudes toward blacks that you mentioned, were a factor. Imagine that the same man who you viewed as sub-human two weeks ago is now supposed to be your equal. No scenario under which that ends well.

                    The time period that covered everything – economics, politics, the social sciences. Maybe it’s why we keep talking about it all these years later. Our post-war approach later changed dramatically. After destroying Germany and a good chunk of Europe, not to mention Japan, we sunk a lot of money into rebuilding efforts. I wonder if preventing the animus of the post-CW era had something to do with that.

                    1. “There are stories of slaves going back to the plantation, not of love for the master but because it was all they knew. Blacks had no money, no property, no connections or contacts to help them transition; they had freedom but no clear idea what to do with it.”

                      This reeks of Confederate apologia and bad history. Throughout the war, slaves fled their plantations, many joining the Union Army, either as soldiers, or companions. This article describes an example of that. Here’s a pretty pertinent quote:
                      Perhaps most surprising of all ? for “Northerners accustomed to Southern tales of contentedly dependent slaves ? was this, in the words of one soldier: There is a universal desire among the slaves to be free. . . . Even old men and women, with crooked backs, who could hardly walk or see, shared the same feeling.'”
                      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04…..wanted=all

                      This letter is from a former slave who asked to come back to his old plantation as a wage laborer. Draw whatever conclusions you like.

                      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-farm.html

                      Lastly, black codes, Jim Crow laws, and many other forms of discrimination didn’t exactly leave black people totally free to do what they like or provide them with opportunities for advancement.

                    2. This reeks of Confederate apologia and bad history.

                      My family did not hit the States until the 50s, so there is no generations-long connection to skew my view. Simply put, we had no dog in the fight. As to reeking, well, history sometimes does that:

                      http://www.historyisaweapon.co…..insky.html

                      There are also stories of blacks fighting for the Confederacy. If you take this as support for Jim Crow, it’s not. But history is not always as neat and clean as some might like. I do know that I was in integrated classes from day one and that we made it work.

                    3. “My family did not hit the States until the 50s, so there is no generations-long connection to skew my view. Simply put, we had no dog in the fight. As to reeking, well, history sometimes does that:”

                      Never said there was. But growing up in a place can definitely skew your view of things.

                      I never said anything about no blacks fighting for the Confederacy or that what you described NEVER happened. I’m just saying that overall, the historical evidence is clear that the vast majority of black slaves wanted to be free and your perception of things is dangerously close to false caricature of happy slaves who just couldn’t handle freedom

                    4. “Imagine that the same man who you viewed as sub-human two weeks ago is now supposed to be your equal. No scenario under which that ends well.”

                      Which is exactly my point. It was going to end badly regardless of the Civil War and/or Reconstruction. Abolition was in no way imminent in 1860, and it’s pure fantasy to think that when it eventually would have been ended, that blacks would have been given equality if not for the war.

                2. Regarding the second part, well I commend you for being consistent, my point was that a lot of other people who make that point about the Civil War and Reconstruction often take a “Get over it!” approach to racism, and generally don’t show the same sort of empathy to black people that they show towards white Southerners for up to 100 years after the Civil War.

            2. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

              From the Mississippi Declaration

              “We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable …

            3. … That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.”

              From the Texas Declaration

              The Civil War and Reconstruction were in no way necessary to foment animosity towards blacks or cement a belief in their inferiority among white Southerners. It’s absurd to think that a society where the preceding thoughts were dominant, and a society that seceded at the mere prospect of electing a president who opposed the *spread* of slavery, would have somehow granted black people political and social equality when they eventually did abolish slavery.

              Regarding your second paragraph, I am not trying to say that the North was or is a post-racial paradise. Nonetheless, there is no comparison regarding the scale of institutionalized racism historically between the South and the North.

              1. I did not compare race relations between North and South; I am making the point that even without institutionalization, open prejudice existed. Ask any black athlete who played for a Boston team during the Civil Rights era and for about 20 years afterward. Ask black in LA when Darrell Gates was police chief.

                Reconstruction did not cause racism and no one claims it did. But it had a role in perpetuating bad feelings for another hundred years or so. As it was, dismantling Jim Crow required the help of whites, too.

                1. “I did not compare race relations between North and South; I am making the point that even without institutionalization, open prejudice existed. Ask any black athlete who played for a Boston team during the Civil Rights era and for about 20 years afterward. Ask black in LA when Darrell Gates was police chief.”

                  Ok, but what exactly is your point? I never claimed that racism had to be institutionalized. And you don’t need to tell me about racist policies of the LAPD. I live in LA, and while I’m sure it was worse under Gates, it still happens. Most of my black male friends and a few of my Hispanic friends have been profiled by police for no good reason at some point. I’ve seen this with my own eyes.

                  “Reconstruction did not cause racism and no one claims it did. But it had a role in perpetuating bad feelings for another hundred years or so.”

                  This implies that without Reconstruction, black people would have received legal equality earlier than in its absence. I don’t see how this is true. White Southerners had no intention of giving black people equality after the war, and attempts by the federal government to enforce equality was one of the chief things about Reconstruction that pissed off white Southerners. The Southern states passed black codes almost literally as soon as the war was over and the Thirteenth Amendment passed.

                  1. in a sense, Reconstruction was viewed like the case of the gay couple suing the baker, albeit on a larger and more sinister scale. Not a great analogy, perhaps, but nothing happens in a vacuum.

                    When you take an area that was decidedly unequal and attempt to mandate equality, there will be blowback, much like folks look at this week’s veto in AZ as trying to legislate thought. The South responded to forced equality with Jim Crow.

                    To tie back to the point of this article, southern businesses wore their bigotry out in the open whereas other parts of the country hid it. The tide of public opinion brought it to an end, and as a bonus thought, odd how minorities in Atlanta or B’ham don’t have the same hostility toward cops as those in LA. I’m sure there is some skepticism towards LEOs but doesn’t seem on the scale of what you’ve witnessed.

                    1. “in a sense, Reconstruction was viewed like the case of the gay couple suing the baker, albeit on a larger and more sinister scale. Not a great analogy, perhaps, but nothing happens in a vacuum.

                      When you take an area that was decidedly unequal and attempt to mandate equality, there will be blowback, much like folks look at this week’s veto in AZ as trying to legislate thought. The South responded to forced equality with Jim Crow.”

                      Do you not see the flaw in your analysis though? Inequality existed before Reconstruction. Jim Crow was inequality. Had there been no attempt to force equality, there still would have been inequality. The black codes that were passed immediately after the war (but were struck down) were even worse than the Jim Crow laws that eventually came to be.

                2. “As it was, dismantling Jim Crow required the help of whites, too.”

                  Well, yeah, obviously, I’m not sure where I claimed otherwise. Given the fact that blacks were a minority of the population and held very little to no political power, I’m not sure how it could have been dismantled without the help of whites short of armed insurrection.

    2. “Lynching” = “murder” and was/is already illegal. Slavery was a law, as already noted. What’s killed more people – people who are bigots, or government action?

      I think we all know…even if it’s inspired by bigotry, government action has killed millions, and millions, and millions, and millions…

      Bigots unsanctioned or under the auspices of gummint? Not quite so many…

      1. All those slaveholders would have been good upstanding multiculturalists if it weren’t for the damn government stepping in and forcing them to own black people. One wonders how these pro-slavery governments continued for decades, when the poor oppressed plantation owners could have voted them out at any time.

        1. Or if they hadn’t been given the sanction to be slaveholders by the government, their slaves might have been more inclined to tell them “fuck off Jack, I hear it’s nice up north” and then all of their non-racist, non-slaveholding neighbors could have aided the slaves in bettering their lives. It was illegal to crack a whip across anybody else’s back but a slave’s and force them to work. The government made that possible, not the whip.

          1. It was illegal to crack a whip across anybody else’s back but a slave’s and force them to work.

            Umm, no. The whip made it possible, government simply got out of the way.

            all of their non-racist, non-slaveholding neighbors could have aided the slaves in bettering their lives.

            Bwahahahaha! Yeah, those people totally existed in the South at the time. You can tell from the success of anti-slavery politicians in elections.

            1. Umm, no. The whip made it possible, government simply got out of the way.

              By failing to defend the same rights that every other human in the country was entitled to, the government made slavery possible. The whip made slavery of anyone theoretically possible, but practically impossible because of the government securing their rights. Only the absence of punishment for violating the rights of another human being was slavery possible in any practical sense.

              Bwahahahaha! Yeah, those people totally existed in the South at the time.

              Must be why the government had to pass a law making criminals of anyone who aided escaped slaves.

              1. The whip made slavery of anyone theoretically possible, but practically impossible because of the government securing their rights.

                So government actually limited slavery? Thanks for agreeing with me.

                1. Lol, I hope you treated logic to a meal before you did that to it at least.

    3. “this bigoted law.”

      You realize, of course, that you just admitted that you bought the MSM-idiocracy characterization of the AZ law. You really should read it–it’s only two pages long.

      http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/5…..b1062p.pdf

    4. It’s interesting the Left supports the idea of cultural relativity. Perhaps this is not so anymore or I misunderstand it, but I’ve always interpreted this to mean one should not judge or at least endeavoer to understand the actions and mores of another culture. If so, isn’t is hypocritical to judge the culture of 200 years ago as much as another culture of the present? I’m not saying one should not judge. Just pointing out that at some point, it’s highly contradictory.

    5. You are absolutely right. That law, as well as the idea of non association puts America back to precivil rights. It would be like having to start the civil rights movement all over. It is a slippery slope once those who benefit from oppression or the legacy from oppression begin claiming they are now oppressed.

  5. I dislike the way the “should they be allowed” argument is phrased here. I would say that “Yes, bigots should be allowed to discriminate. They should also suffer the non-violent social costs of their bigotry.”

    Saying that someone should not be allowed to do something carries the implicit threat of state action (“There ought to be a law”). Hanging a sign in your window which says ‘No dogs or Irish allowed’ is an exercise in free speech and freedom of assembly. The same is true when the Hibernian Lodge takes out ads in the local paper condemning your bigotry and sponsors protests outside your store.

  6. I don’t know why we even need public shaming. Just let the offending business owner do his thing and find another dress maker or cake baker or photographer or limo driver or whatever the fuck. There are shitty people in the world. Ignore them. Don’t make your wedding about activism. If you start your life together mired in some crusade, once that crusade is won you’re likely going to find your marriage is based on nothing.

    (I’m just embracing the apparent fact that this whole thing is localized to the wedding industry.)

    1. No, no, don’t you see? So long as one shitty person exists we must outlaw shittiness in all its forms, or else bad things will happen. Without the coercive power of the state keeping our bestial natures in check, we’ll go all Lord of the Flies in this bitch.

      Or so I gather from the “racism was everywhere until we made it illegal” argument above. Mind you, if that’s the case, we may as well detonate the nukes now.

    2. I agree FOE. Move on. If you’re going to crusade against all sorts of perceived wrongs, you won’t live and go loco.

      Why they have to make a point and go after that ONE bakery is illogical to me. If they discriminate against me, I go to another bakery.

      They’re not really solving a problem. If anything, they’re calcifying the behavior. But hey, the government because rights.

      Very foolish.

    3. Yeah, the market takes care of this problem just fine all by itself even without protests and public shame campaigns.

      Also, sit-ins violate the rights of property owners. If you’re asked to leave someone’s establishment, you should leave. It is their property to dispose of however they wish.

      1. Yeah, the market takes care of this problem just fine all by itself even without protests and public shame campaigns.

        Yes, but I if the issue is considered to be serious enough, this route may not be considered quick enough for many. See “Civil War”, 600,000 dead.

  7. Discrimination is wrong, unless it’s in one of a million ways we dont care about. So basically, it’s just wrong to be a certain type of discriminator

    1. In Quebec, some businesses have stickers on their doors that say ‘ici on commerce en francais’ which basically means ‘fuck you english speakers.’

      It’s a form of discrimination. Know what I do? I don’t shop there. It’s an unfortunate because the province has no pulse on liberty and with it there’s absolutely no discussion on this. Quebec is in a mode now where discrimination is so ingrained in our laws that’s it’s accepted behavior.

      I like that they have discriminatory laws because it flushes out in the open the xenophobes and bigots. I know who they are because they’re ignorant enough to display it in public.

      I swear, it’s fucking Mississippi up here some of the stupidity I hear these yokels say. They’re not embarrassed the way they talk because they think, by antagonizing and using punitive measures suppressing one group to prop up another, is defending their ‘culture.’

      Keep ’em in the open I say. I don’t want no asshole with stupid private thoughts around me.

      1. Real question: are the French especially bigoted? I noticed in a couple mathematics textbooks written by Frenchmen that they are really, REALLY pissed off that their publisher made them translate the work into English before it could be published. They were extremely pissed off basically that the US exists and that everyone isn’t speaking French and worshipping French culture.

        Are French (and French Canadians) just like that?

        1. Annecdata: the French kids I hungout with in the exchange program mentioned their elders being racists. Now I wonder if their passion for reggae was based in teen-rebellion.

        2. It’s complicated. They have/had a point. But now it’s excessive.

          Being told your culture and language is under constant threat will make you paranoid. What was meant to merely “right” perceived discrimination at the hands of the English has become a full blown out war against anything not French.

          They don’t see it that way but the proof is in the laws: Bill 22, 101, 78, and now 14. As well as giving powers to language police like the OLF to harass what are supposed to be FREE peoples. In the end, there is NO freedom of expression here.

          The Parti Quebecois in particular are populists who prey on the tribal urges of their base who have a problem with ‘les autres’ and especially the English language. They don’t see it this way because, like I said, as they step on my rights they expect me to understand.

          A large number of Quebecers, recall,live outside of Montreal and tend to be a little more isolated.

          Remove the nonsense of the PQ and Quebec will progress into a more enlightened state of mind.

          Look, it’s no coincidence a second exodus is currently under way and it may include me.

          1. How come basically no other culture reacts this way to the spread of English, other than the French?

            1. …they’re French.

              They like to fight battles where the outcomes are already determined.

  8. It’s like Walter Williams says when he talks about segregation laws: if everyone supported the idea of bigotry, we wouldn’t have needed laws to enforce it.

    There are enough businessmen and other individuals who disagree with the idea of discrimination to pick up the slack if someone else decides that one group’s money isn’t good enough anymore.

    1. This^^ x 1000. Walter Williams was the first person who got me thinking about discrimination utterly differently. The man’s a treasure, I tell ya!

      1. Yes, he’s a genius of the classiest kind.

    2. OK, let’s try to apply that generally:

      If everyone supported the idea of murder being immoral, we wouldn’t need laws to enforce it.

      Hmm. Doesn’t seem to fit.

      1. Structuring a sentence the same way does not an analogy make.

        In the construction:

        if everyone supported the idea of bigotry, we wouldn’t have needed laws to enforce it.

        “Enforce it” means forcing people to act in bigoted ways.

        In some tortured sense I guess you could say that the legal prohibition on murder is intended to force people to acknowledge the immorality of murder, but mostly it’s designed to punish people who commit the immoral act.

        Can you spot the difference?

        1. Since you’re getting all semantic, you should know that “bigotry” is an attitude, not an act. So I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make here.

          but mostly it’s designed to punish people who commit the immoral act.

          And deter people from committing the immoral act, yes. Just like segregation laws were designed to deter people from serving people of different races together, and punish those who did so.

          1. big?ot?ry
            noun \?bi-g?-tr?\

            : bigoted acts or beliefs

            You might to clue Merriam-Webster in.

            Just like segregation laws were designed to deter people from serving people of different races together, and punish those who did so.

            Deterrence isn’t really the purpose of the law, but in any case, forcing business to segregate their customers as a condition of operating is categorically different from punishing murderers after the fact. Not least of which in that one proscribes an immoral act while the other requires it.

            1. So you ignore the unbolded part of the definition. Classy.

              And then top it off with claiming deterrence isn’t a purpose of the law? I’ll remember that the next time we’re talking about laws against free speech having a chilling effect.

              1. So you ignore the unbolded part of the definition. Classy.

                Uh, the bolded part was bolded for your edification since it completely contradicts your ad-hoc definition of the word. Note the “or” operator there, not “and”.

                And then top it off with claiming deterrence isn’t a purpose of the law?

                It isn’t. Or at least shouldn’t be, IMO. The purpose of justice is punitive. It punishes people for aberrant behavior. The law can only exist in a society where the people already acknowledge each other’s rights. If deterrence were the purpose of the law then there would be nobody to erect the law in the first place.

                I’ll remember that the next time we’re talking about laws against free speech having a chilling effect.

                Deterrence can, in certain circumstances, be a secondary effect, though usually not the primary purpose, of an abusive law. I tend to think the kind of laws where deterrence is the intention, like the immoral and unconstitutional suppression of free speech, are pretty shitty laws, myself.

        2. but mostly it’s designed to punish people who commit the immoral act.

          Buy who determinse what is moral? Wouldn’t morality derive from the local culture? However, ‘morality’ is often imposed by one culture on another by force of arms.

          1. Buy who determinse what is moral?

            “But who determines . . . “

      2. Well, yeah that’s actually true. Obviously not everyone thinks murder is immoral.

      3. You’ve got it backwards. It should be:

        If murdering people is so great, we wouldn’t need laws to enforce murder.

        See? My example (Williams’ example) is about forcing immoral actions, not forcing moral actions.

  9. OT: Olga Kotelko turns 95 today

    Interview from last month (~5MB, 14 min MP3 file)

    I hope I can be half as active at 95.

    1. Happy Birthday, Olga! Holy shit! 95 years old and still competing in the hammer throw.

      Thanks, Ted – great story!

  10. “Should the government coercively sanction business owners who, out of apparent religious conviction, refuse to serve particular customers?

    While such behavior is repugnant,…”

    There is no potential customer Richman would refuse out of moral reluctance to be involved with the customer’s activities? He is that much of a mercenary?

    Say a graphic arts business refusing to make signs for Westboro Baptist is also repugnant behavior?

    1. This whole court is repugnant!

    2. Don’t forget Illinois Nazis. I hate them.

    3. Don’t be ridiculous. Those are icky people. If the people are universally acknowledged to be icky then discrimination is not only okay, it’s required. Discriminating against non-icky people is pretty assholish though. So that’s utterly repugnant.

    4. There’s a difference between refusing to make signs for WBC and refusing to serve food to WBC members. One is refusing to assist in their activities, the other is just spiteful discrimination.

      1. Uh, no, there isn’t. One is refusing to provide a service to people you don’t like, the other is refusing to provide a service to people you don’t like. They are identical forms of discrimination, and they are both the prerogative of the service provider. Fuck off, slaver.

        1. The fact that you ignore the difference doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

          1. The fact that see a self-manufactured difference doesn’t mean that there is a difference

            1. Handy if you need to justify being a fascist against people you don’t like though.

            2. So, to use an example near and dear to libertarian hearts since you seem wilfully obtuse, selling SWAT teams flashbang grenades and battering rams is no different from selling them Pepsi and margarine?

              1. selling SWAT teams flashbang grenades and battering rams is no different from selling them Pepsi and margarine?

                No, it’s not any different. Selling them kool aid, iPods and prophylactics would all be the same thing too. Selling something is selling something. If you don’t want to sell somebody something, you shouldn’t have to sell them something. Doesn’t matter what it is. Doesn’t matter why. Period.

      2. So what’s the difference between refusing to make signs for the WBC and refusing to photograph a homosexual wedding?

        1. S the latter is something Richman apparently thinks is bigoted and repugnant?

        2. You sure do love false equivalencies don’t you? Full disclaimer: everyone should have the right to serve who they want and not serve who they don’t want. That doesn’t mean it’s somehow hypocritical of me to think that rejecting service can be good at times and bad at other times.

          1. What false equivalency? Both the graphic artist and the photographer are refusing to perform the service to avoid tacitly endorsing something they philosophically disagree with. You may agree with philosophical sentiment of one and disagree with the other, and that is your right. Richman wrote that refusing service is repugnant, not refusing service for reasons he disagrees with are repugnant.

            1. This is the full sentence:

              “While such behavior is repugnant, the refusal to serve someone because of his or her race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation is nevertheless an exercise of self-ownership and freedom of nonassociation.”

              I don’t know why you decided to include a sentence that wasn’t even a part of the same paragraph, and then cut off in the middle of the actual sentence. By “such behavior” Richman is referring to “the refusal to serve someone because of his or her race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.” It makes far more sense to interpret it that way, than to think that Richman was referring to anyone who refuses to serve potential customers. The first sentence was an entirely different paragraph that serves as introductory question for the reader to ponder before reading the rest of the article. The second sentence is a standalone paragraph, and it’s clear that Richman is addressing common objections to allowing people to refuse service for any reason. Which is why he emphasizes that although he finds discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation repugnant, he nonetheless believes people have the right to do it. It’s not Richman’s fault that you interpreted the article disingenuously.

  11. That was an interesting read. Being Australian, I was shocked to realise this was an issue in the US but I guess, the fact it is points to a fundamental difference between two otherwise similar societies. Over here, any kind of discrimination such as this article speaks about is unambiguously illegal & will either see one sued to hell or facing some kind of charges. Whilst I understand the argument about the right of the private business owner to run his or her own business as they see fit, we do not see it exactly the same. Another view is that any small business, corporation or whatever is operating only by permission of society & relies upon taxpayer funded infrastructures, trade & other forms of protection & so on to exist at all. When u consider the taxpayer funded bails out following the GFC especially, the idea of private business as some kind of stand alone entity becomes pretty shaky. I am quite certain gays, non-whites or whoever bigots aren’t happy with pay taxes the same as everyone else over there.

    1. “…the fact it is points to a fundamental difference between two otherwise similar societies.”

      Yes, it does. The difference being you are subjects and we are citizens. We fought a war so as not to bend the knee to overweening government authority.

      1. It’s funny that Aussies have this reputation here as strong-willed, independent sorts, but in reality they’re just tanner brits. A nation of meddling, sniveling bureaucrats, in other words.

      2. Mickey, isn’t the line between subject and citizen blurred in contemporary America? I don’t know if America is any freer than Australia, Britain or Canada anymore. I HOPE it is because it gives me hope but not so sure reading what goes on in America.

        1. Yes, but there is still controversy over government authority in this regard.

    2. Wow, that’s definitely a completely different perspective. Particularly the bit about a business operating by the sufferance of society.

      The way I see it, at least, is that, for one thing, “society” is a theoretical construct. It’s shorthand for “a bunch of people who live in roughly the same community at the level of reference relevant to whatever topic we’re discussing.” There is no such thing as society, however. Society doesn’t make decisions or condone things or have opinions; individuals do. When individuals act in concert, you nevertheless cannot say that “society” acts or behaves a certain way, or holds certain beliefs; the classic example here is if 6 of a group of 10 vote to kill the other 4, those 4 don’t suddenly agree. The group entire doesn’t believe 4 of its members should be murdered.

      (cont.)

      1. So with that said, if a store opens up on my street (civic ordinances and crap notwithstanding) it sinks or swims based on the owner’s ability to provide useful stuff. Nobody goes door-to-door to ask if we’ll build the store for him/her, or if it can open in the first place. The street was there already. Unless the owner’s getting some kind of government loan or subsidy or other such nonsense, everything to do with that business comes from the blood, sweat, and tears of the owners, and it thrives or fails based on his/her/their efforts.

        So, short story long, no one has any right to come in and tell that business owner what he/she can or cannot do with his/her property, provided nobody else’s property is getting fucked with in any real way.

        1. Oh, and the street was built by private contractors paid for by tax revenue through a system of cronyism and horse-trading we call local government. Not surprisingly, that same system makes it illegal for private individuals to collectively decide they’d like a road somewhere and have it built.

        2. Transportation infrastructure increases trade, which increases tax revenue, which is advantageous to government. It’s a win-win. People to not *owe* government for providing this infrastucture. Being forced to pay taxes has merit as an argument for forcing businesses to NOT discriminate. However, by this reasoning this would apply more to those who pay more taxes. If you don’t pay any taxes, you have no right to NOT be discriminated against.

      2. Wow, that’s definitely a completely different perspective. Particularly the bit about a business operating by the sufferance of society.

        Really?

        It sounds just like our dipshit Dear Leader’s “you didn’t build that” speech to me.

        1. You got a permit to say that, Gen’l?

          1. Lookie here, you son of a bitch, I’m in a free speech zone right now and I actually do have a permit. So there.

            1. Verbally assaulting an agent of the state!

              GIT ‘IM!

    3. Your argument would lead to state action being ascribed to every single person, as every single person would be somehow dependent on the infrastructure. Thus, if a private citizen told me to shut up, I could sue him for violating my First Amendment rights.

      That’s what we in the states call a “reductio ad absurdum.”

    4. I just heard the same thing the other day. In Canada, the thinking is you need a license to operate a business ergo you must be compelled to serve everyone and be subjected to all laws set forth by the government.

      Personally, I don’t believe there should be any licenses or permits creating artificial barriers to entry thus enhancing the potential for corruption and scams which, in the end, hurt an economy.

    5. “. . . is operating only by permission of society & relies upon taxpayer funded infrastructures, trade & other forms of protection & so on to exist at all.”

      No wonder you don’t get it. That is the wedge that all statists employ – “you didn’t build this. And so, we can impose our values on your liberty.”

    6. So as long as enough people place a gun to my head and take my money for ostensibly noble purposes that I may partake of at some point in the future by nature of being alive, they are entitled to also tell me how to conduct my affairs because I used the ostensibly noble resources for which my money was taken at the point of a gun?

      How about fuck off slaver?

    7. Ha, I knew Obama wasn’t an American! You didn’t build that!

      1. Other than the fact that he’s an American citizen I can’t see anything very American about him.

    8. “Another view is that any small business, corporation or whatever is operating only by permission of society ”

      The American view is that individuals have a right to exist and live their lives without getting “permission” to do so from the rest of society. That includes freedom of association, contract, and trade.

      Or it used to be the American view. Now it’s a minority view here as well.

  12. I discriminated the other day when I purchased jasmine rice instead of Carolina rice.

    1. Only white rice? Racist.

    2. What about Aborio rice?!

      I’m starting a petition to force people to buy the proper rice for risotto.

      1. Rice snob!

        1. Yeah but…look Bush!

          1. Big game last night! Gotta be some happy, hungover Habs fans in your neck of the woods this morning.

            1. Dunno and don’t care.

              As long as the Habs have a self-imposed retarded rule of not hiring qualified coaches where available because they can’t speak French I hope they lose.

              I want Ted Nolan but he’d never have a shot at coaching here. With such short-sightedness, they hamper their chances of winning by limiting choice.

              They’re statists!

              1. Haha! Poor Cunneyworth. That was fucking hilarious! You get a job coaching at the highest level, only to have your boss go out and apologize to the fans for hiring you – not because you are a shitty coach (which he was) – but because you can’t speak French. You really can’t make it up

                1. That was AWFUL what management did to that guy. A disgrace.

                  Another reason I can’t stand them anymore.

                  1. Well, they do provide endless entertainer for those of us south of the border. There are a lot of screwed up franchises out there right now. Vancouver looks like the next major train wreck.

                    1. Buffalo is worse!

  13. I actually do practice discrimination against business whose activities I don’t like. I just don’t involve the gummint in carrying it out to force others to abide by my wishes.

    Fuck compelled association.

  14. “The libertarian answer to bigotry is community organizing.”

    Cute. But we live in the real world unlike you libertarians who lick unicorn balls. We need the government to force change!

    /prog.

    1. “Unicorn Ball-lickers” sounds like a pretty good name for a rock-n-roll band.

  15. Whilst I understand the argument about the right of the private business owner to run his or her own business as they see fit, we do not see it exactly the same.

    One of the many distinctions between citizens and subjects.

    Don’t worry, though; we’re sliding rapidly down that slope.

    1. Thing is, if businesses are only around because of the infrastructure and whim of the state, then why have them at all? Why not cut out the middle man and just have the state manufacture and distribute all the goods?

      Each person could work for the state and they would be expected to work up to their abilities and would receive goods according to their needs. We could have top experts figure out the needs and abilities of the population and govern thusly, i.e. from a rational, logical perspective.

  16. Conservatism is all about group identity – never the individual. You have to be a Christian, a white American, etc. One of “us”. As long as this “us” exists there will be overzealous lawmakers trying to remedy this perceived injustice.

    1. Yes we can!

    2. Oh yeah, the left is the last bastion of individualism, fighting against being forced to submit to groupthink. Are you going for blatantly deliberate irony or did you wander over from Democratic Underground and forget how to get back?

      1. All kind of weirdos are welcome in the Democratic Party. They even elect a lot of them to Congress.

        1. “We don’t care who you fuck as long as you think the exact same way we do” is not any different in kind than “We don’t care if you think the same we do as long as we like who you fuck”

          It is, however, awesome that you’ve found an identity group that accepts even the most abject of retards.

          Also, “Conservative” isn’t a political party. “Democratic Party” is a political party. The mixed metaphor is the absolute least of your idiocy, but something you might want to keep in mind.

  17. Oh good, shriek is hear! Now if we can just get Botard, the thread can totally be fucked up!

    1. You Paleos don’t like having your circle-jerk interrupted, do you?

      1. Eight percent of them do.

    2. Captain Classical Liberal is here to save the day!

  18. Eight per cent.

    EIGHT!

  19. I would hope the author isn’t encouraging sit-ins against “homophobic” businesses. He cites the sit-ins against racist business. Now, those sit-ins may or may not have been justified. From a libertarian perspective, some communities had Jim Crow laws forcing businesses to be segregated. And there was the whole context of a pervasive caste system which had to be challenged.

    But however one comes down on this question from the Jim Crow era, trespassing (which is what sit-ins involve) is an assault on the property rights of “homophobic” businesses, and it’s just the thing that some activists may decide to do.

    1. I’d be OK with activists trying to enter the business and then leaving when the bigoted owner tosses them out.

      They could then trumpet the fact that the owner is a bigot who threw them out. At that point the rest of the people could make up their own minds about whether they wanted to continue giving that business their custom or not.

      If the activists wanted to have a sit-in, they should be arrested. The activists should be willing to take their lumps if they want to push that hard.

      1. The homosex activists experimented with using the free market when they staged that Chick-fil-A boycott, remember?

        After that utterly backfired, they’re back to screaming for mommy government to wield its stick on their behalf.

        1. Chik-Fil-a was a poor target. It was not even alleged to have refused to SELL chicken sandwiches to homosexuals.

          1. Well, the owners expressed disagreement with the idea of same-sex marriage, which is a very similar mindset to the members of Westboro Baptist Church.

            1. Disagreement will not be tolerated!

  20. Why not cut out the middle man and just have the state manufacture and distribute all the goods?

    I have absolute confidence in my county commissioners to accurately discern and satisfy my needs.

  21. Now, I’m glad that the article clears up certain misconceptions about the Arizona bill, actually analyzing what it really says rather than follow the MSM’s lead and denounce its supposed anti-gay ickiness, which was the approach of some earlier Reason articles while the bill was pending.

  22. I’m in a free speech zone right now and I actually do have a permit.

    That permit doesn’t allow you to randomly blurt out the first thing that comes into your head. You have to have your content pr-approved.

    And woe betide the protestor who deviates from his script.

  23. “It cannot be denied that fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that fascism has thereby won for itself will live eternally in history.”

    Ludwing Von Mises

    1. Considering that Europe’s economic system, as well as our own, could best be described as fascist, I’m groping for what possible point you could have been trying to make.

    2. You forgot the second part to that quote: “But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.”

      You know. It’s been noted here by many you’re a selective liar.

      Caught you in one myself.

      You’re just another run of the mill left-wing nut job.

      1. It’s been noted here by many you’re a selective liar.

        Whoa whoa whoa now, when has anyone ever applied the modifier “selective”?

      2. I still think Mises was wrong to think that fascism had “the best intentions” or that the merits it won will live on eternally.

        1. Fascism’s policies were thought to encompass good intentions just as Liberal polcies are often thought to be so. That doesn’t mean the actors behind them were/are not cynical opportunists.

  24. There’s a lot to the argument that anti-discrimination laws were necessary to extirpate the Jim Crow culture. The free market is great but market failure does exist, and sometimes the market is painfully slow to do its work.

    Look at the case of no-smoking bars. In say, 1985 they were practically nonexistent, despite smokers being a minority. Was this due to lack of demand for no-smoking bars? Of course not. Non-smokers were a majority of the population, and don’t enjoy being in smoke filled enclosed spaces. It was due to the fact that bars didn’t want to lose smokers’ business and non-smokers were resigned to accept that bars were always going to be full of smoke. Textbook market failure.. until the anti-smoking laws came about and forced bars to become non-smoking. (I would have preferred a carrot approach rather than a stick one — maybe offer discounted liquor licenses, so there would be a mix of non-smoking and smoking bars, but you see my point)

    Same way with segregated businesses. Other than a few instances where segregation was inherently a pain in the ass (such as rail service, hence Plessy), for most businesses it wasn’t worth pissing off the racist white customers (ie, white customers) to gain the favor of poor black people who were largely accepting of segregation at the time.

    1. There was no “Jim Crow culture”, dumbass. There was institutionalized segregation. The STATE-imposed system of segregation penalized businesses that refused to adhere to the law. Calling that a culture, which exists outside the scope of institutionalization, is wildly inaccurate when describing the south.

      Now, if there was some sort of “Jim Crow culture” at the time, it existed in the northeast and Midwestern cities where people self-segregated into neighborhoods by race or cultural background or even sexual orientation to a lesser degree.

      1. Why didn’t all those non-racist Southern whites vote out the segregationist governments then?

        Why weren’t they joining the bus boycotts? Or the Woolworth’s sit-ins?

        1. Do you still vote for the GOP candidate every election even though he doesn’t represent even half of your views?

          1. Ad-hominem away! 2012 was the first time I voted GOP for president in 12 years, so your attempt fails even at its intended target.

            Needless to say, if Romney were supporting segregation laws, I would not have voted for him.

            1. Buy what if he supported segregation laws but he was the “only bauble option” to get rid of a guy you despised even more because he was destroying the national economy? Would you vote for him or would you stomp your feet and “throw your vote away” on a third party candidate that had no chance at all of winning?

              I don’t thing these are ad hom attacks. Especially when they’re being directed at you and everything you said on here in the run up to the 2012 election.

              1. Buy what if he supported segregation laws but he was the “only bauble option” to get rid of a guy you despised even more because he was destroying the national economy?

                Oh please. This is an “If Mitt Romney were running against Hitler who would you vote for?” level question.

                That’s not the situation that faced whites in the Jim Crow South, regardless.

                One wonders how all those lynchings happened if the populace was so non-racist. Must be the government forcing people to break into the jail and hang the nigger and take pictures with his corpse.

                1. Because saying that not every southerner was a racist and may have acted differently if not for laws institutionalizing racism means that none of them were.

                  1. Enough of them were racist to keep those laws in place, and make any internal challenges to the laws nonexistent. Enough of them were racist to allow lynchings in broad daylight with absolutely no fear of retaliation.

                    Damn democratic government, oppressing the majority yet again!

                    1. Enough of them were racist to keep those laws in place, and make any internal challenges to the laws nonexistent. Enough of them were racist to allow lynchings in broad daylight with absolutely no fear of retaliation.

                      Or enough of them were afraid enough of the racists and lynch mobs operating under color of the law to keep their mouths shut. Or apathetic enough not to give a shit about it since it didn’t hurt themselves.

                      This is all kind of getting way away from the point though anyway. No, the CRA and anti-discrimination laws were not necessary to overturn the grossly unconstitutional Jim Crow laws in the south, nor were they necessary to punish those who committed crimes against blacks in the south. The proclivity of southerners to be racists didn’t need eradicating by the government. The government’s place is not to police our thoughts.

        2. And a lot of them weren’t joining the protests because they weren’t activists.

          Do you really think only a few thousand people wanted to end segregation because only that many marched in Selma? Come on, man. There aren’t that many people out there willing to take an active stand on any major issue even if they support it. How many people were in the square in Kiev last week? Do you really think they’re the only ones that didn’t fully support the former government because they were the only ones that showed up?

          1. Black people who weren’t activists participated in the march — why not white people? Rosa Parks wasn’t an activist.

            I don’t recall the police stationing patrols on the Montgomery buses to make sure bus drivers forced black people out of their seats when the white section filled up, either. The white drivers took care of it themselves.

            1. I suppose the white drivers may not have wanted to get locked up for defying the people with guns and barking german shepherds.

              And yes, Rosa Parks became an activist when she refused to move. And God bless her for it. God bless all of the people with the courage to risk life and limb to stand up to the state when the state is wrong.

              1. I suppose the white drivers may not have wanted to get locked up for defying the people with guns and barking german shepherds.

                LOL. If you read the actual story, the cops responding to Parks’ refusal to move were just as irritated with the bus driver (who was applying the law incorrectly — Parks was sitting in the black section, and black passengers weren’t supposed to have to move for the sake of newly boarding white passengers) as they were with Parks.

                But the image of poor oppressed non-racist white Southerners in the 1950s is pretty cute. We will overcome!

    2. Was this due to lack of demand for no-smoking bars? Of course not.

      By definition, it was because of lack of demand for no-smoking bars that patrons would be sufficiently motivated to pay extra money for. There’s demand for literally an infinite number of things. Demand has to be sufficient to satisfy the costs of providing alternatives in order for it to be economically useful. If non-smokers cared enough about smoke in bars to stop attending bars, then some enterprising bar owner would have catered to them with prices reflecting the cost of doing so.

      That was not a market failure, and even if it were, subjugating the minority on behalf of the majority was not a correction of it.

      1. A non-smoking bar doesn’t cost any more than a smoking bar.

        1. It may not cost more to open but will to operate when you cut out the smoking portion of the marketplace and tell them they’re not welcome.

          It doesn’t cost more to open a restaurant in an Italian food-loving neighborhood that serves nothing but Swedish smoked fish.

        2. My mistake. I didn’t realize you didn’t understand opportunity cost.

        3. I like how you zeroed in on that non-sequitur instead of the morality of correcting an ostensible market failure by sticking guns in business owners’ faces as well.

          Stay classy, Tulpa.

        4. A non-smoking bar doesn’t cost any more than a smoking bar

          I don’t think there is evidence either way. Smoking customers would be lost, but anti-smoking customers and those who didn’t want to come home smelling like an ash tray, would increase. In SF they might prosper, in Durham NC not so much.

          1. Town I used to bartend in had a few non-smoking bars back in the days you could still smoke and mostly they did well. They were serving an underserved market at the time and I know the owner of one such bar was less than pleased when the law was changed.

            1. Unpossible. Tulpa just explained to us that literally no bar owners opened up non-smoking bars to cater to non-smoking customers, because market failure. It took telling every business owner how they should operate their business to free us from the tyranny of mandatory smokey bars.

              1. It was a classic market story that warmed my libertarian heart.

                Bar X was founded to tap an underserved market of beer snobbery and did very well for years. The one knock against it was that it was rather small and got so smokey that it could burn your eyes.

                A trio of smart ex-bartenders from bar X took the pulse of the market and decided to make a go of serving up the same beer snobbery but sans smoking and wow, now their were two beer snob bars and one could chose between them, all w/o state involvement. Must have been divine intervention or something.

            2. Which town? Which bars?

              Sorry to be a skeptic, but I lived in some very large cities at the time and non-smoking bars were nonexistent.

              1. Seriously Tulpa? You want me to get you their earnings records for the last ten quarters, too?

                Allentown, PA

                Name of the non smoking bar in the story was Stooges.

                I know it may break your brain, but yes, this really happened.

                1. According to this article, Stooges went smoke free in September 2007. After non-smoking bars were common in neighboring states.

                  1. Then it’s wrong. They were nonsmoking in 2002 for sure. I WAS THERE. I drank there. I ate there. I smoked outside there.

          2. In Minneapolis, the anti-smoking activists promised that if they passed the smoking ban MORE people would come out to bars. They swore that there were hordes of non smokers who cowered in their home because of the evil smokers. Once they were saved by the ban, these people would flood the bars.

            The ban passed, business plummeted and bars closed. Repeal the ban? Nope, the problem was that the ban needed to be state wide. It wasn’t fair to the Minneapolis bars that you could still smoke in the suburbs.

            So we got the statewide ban.

            I think, though that this proves that there isn’t some giant unserved group of non smokers out there.

            1. I never said there was. There is a group of nonsmokers currently going to smoking bars that would prefer to go to nonsmoking ones.

              1. There is a group of nonsmokers currently going to smoking bars that would prefer to go to nonsmoking ones.

                Repeating your assertion doesn’t make it any less an unsubstantiated assertion. And importantly, as I said, there must be a large enough sub-set of the market to justify the expenditure to build or buy a new bar that serves that sub-set to the exclusion of others. Smoking bars are not smoker-exclusive, and clearly capture enough of the non-smoker market to make changing their business model uneconomic for them.

                Even more importantly, applying government force to the market to change it to suit one sub-set to the exclusion of the other regardless of the wishes of the business owner was wrong EVEN IF it corrected a market failure to provide non-smoking bars. Even if you’re right, you’re wrong.

            2. Hey Pope, put this in your pipe and smoke it. Business didn’t plummet, it seems to have increase a bit.

              The passage of smoking bans in two large Minnesota cities was not associated with job losses at bars and may in fact have contributed to higher employment in restaurants, according to new research.

              The study is the first to examine the economic effects of clean indoor air policies on bars and restaurants as independent types of businesses, the researchers said. Consistent with previous published studies of the economic impact of smoking bans, this analysis did not find significant economic effects on the hospitality industry as a whole.

              In both Minneapolis and St. Paul, the policies were associated with an increase of at least 3 percent in employment at restaurants over a 2 ?-year span following adoption of a local clean indoor air policy. Employment in Minneapolis bars increased more than 5 percent after passage of that city’s smoking ban, while in St. Paul, bar employment had a nonsignificant decrease of 1 percent ? a decrease that cannot be statistically distinguished from zero, or no change in employment.

              Nevertheless, I am against such bans since they infringe on the bar owner’s right to run his/her bar as he/she wishes.

              1. I’m not sure if using overall employment levels in an industry as a proxy for the effects of regulation is entirely useful. It’s possible Pope is also correct – a lot of smoking bars may have shut down, the industry may have consolidated customers and employees into the remaining establishments, and overall the industry wouldn’t have lost any employment.

                As you said, it’s not entirely relevant anyway. The ban would be wrong whether it decimated the entire industry or it grew at an exponential pace.

            3. The ban passed, business plummeted and bars closed.

              There were a number of other factors happening at the same time,including:

              A general long term drop in the per capita consumption of alcohol.

              A social change wrt public drinking. Thirty years ago it was common for people to drink at lunch and after work before driving home. Now the former is pretty much completely verboten and the latter has been seriously reduced.

              More choice in consumer retail purchases of alcohol.

              More stringent enforcement of drunk driving laws and much stiffer penalties for doing so.

    3. I would have preferred a carrot approach rather than a stick one

      Like, I dunno, let bars decide if they want to post no smoking signs and toss out violators.

    4. The market hasn’t “failed” just because it doesn’t produce the results you want. The market is a result of the collective actions of the participants, even when all of the participants aren’t rational.

      1. Not the result I want, the result the market players want.

        1. Tulpa can read minds!

          1. “I can imagine that a potential market exists, therefore there must be some profitable business model to provide for it”

            I’m guessing you’ve never, ever, ever pitched a business plan.

        2. Not the result I want, the result the market players want.

          Literally everyone who has ever purchased a product or service is a market player.

    5. How is the anti-smoking thing a market failure?

    6. Then why the need for laws? There are many examples of integrated services before Jim Crow. This doesn’t mean that white Southerners weren’t racist. It means that in the absence of segregation laws, they didn’t care enough to refuse to use a method of transportation (to give an example) just because it wasn’t segregated.

    7. Perhaps smokers were a majority of those who went to bars. I’ll leave it to other to confirm whether this was true or not. It could also be that the most of the non-smokers at the time did not really care one way or the other. Therefore, it would only make sense for bars to allow smoking.

  25. Albert Jay Nock.

  26. Speaking of circle jerks, Kindly Old Grandpa Buffett’s annual letter to the rubes came out yesterday.

    Have you worn all the skin off your little pecker yet, Shreeek?

    1. The King of Capitalism is very bullish on America just after reporting record profits of $20 billion at Berkeshire Hathaway. He is looking for new companies to buy with his $49 billion in cash.

      Makes you sick, doesn’t it?

      1. 49 billion could buy a lot of gub’mint choo choos with subsidized operating costs. If he was smart he’d look in that.

  27. Kerry is on meet the Press.

    I feel better, knowing Wise Men’s hands are on the tiller.

    1. After Obama ignores him and decides to get involved in The Ukraine and/or Iran to help Team Blue politically this fall, will he throw his Secretary Of State appointment over a fence and resign in protest?

      1. He will draw a re…no….blue line!

  28. OPPROBRIUM OF THE WORLD, Motherfucker!

    1. Yeah, make vague threats and vehement denunciations, the Reps say we must Do Something because Our Credibility is On the Line.

      Do what we did with Tsarist Russia – let the victims of Russian mistreatment come here and add to our population.

  29. He is looking for new companies to buy with his $49 billion in cash.

    Companies with revenues derived from government policies are his favorites, right?

    1. His last big buy was Heinz catsup. Maybe since Reagan made catsup a vegetable it became more attractive.

      1. Heinz actually doesn’t make a ketchup. But I’m sure John and Theresa will be thrilled at this turn of events.

        1. *doesn’t make a catsup – they make ketchup.

          1. Catsup…ketchup…catsup…ketchup…

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeo2yRRKY9Q

          2. Is it true that they also bottle pop? Wait, soda.

            1. And mass-produced mayo, oppressing all the artisans out there.

              1. I won’t complain about them when I try to compete with them.

                Now, the barriers to entry they have worked with the state to create…health inspectors, licensure, labeling and so on and so forth.

    2. Apparently he still hasn’t found that line on the 1040 for donating extra taxes to the government.

      Maybe he needs better accountants?

      1. His accountants are otherwise detained trying to legally defend the billion dollars of honorable and noble taxes that his companies didn’t pay.

        1. Berkshire has won every single IRS dispute that has been tried in tax court.

          1. I think the point is that Buffett takes every opportunity to (legally) avoid paying taxes, then turns around and mouths to the adoring left and MSM that he’s not taxed enough.

          2. Well then hooray for tax dodging!

            Did you forget which side of this debate you were on?

  30. Kindly Old Grandpa Buffett doesn’t have accountants. He does his own personal income tax return. With a pencil. On Form 1040EZ. And he pays less than his secretary. He’s not one of those moneygrubbing one percenter financial engineers.

    No, sir.

    1. moneygrubbing one percenter

      Quit watching MSNBC.

  31. You are ignoring the fact that the Arizona law used the word “individual…”

    Let’s take the Muslim taxi driver you mention, as an example. Suppose he does refuse to pick up that woman. Sure, you can organize a protest around the taxi company. Sure, the company might say he should not have done that. But even the company then could not fire that individual, because he was in his rights to exercise his religious prerogatives. And that could be extended anywhere.

    1. They could fire him without cause.

      1. I’m not so sure that is the case. Of course they can do it, but they also could be sued. You might fire that 60 year old employee who has a stellar record, and do it without cause, but you probably will be sued for age discrimination. And now you are adding religious tenets to the equation.

        And then how about government employees? They too would be allowed to decide who to provide services for based on their religious beliefs.

        1. AZ is an at-will employment state, so unless the employee belonged to a protected class and could convince a jury that his relationship to that protected class was the true reason for his termination, the employee would have no real recourse.

          1. Even in at-will states this would be a problem.

            http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency…..30209.html

            “It is illegal for employers to fire employees for asserting their rights under the state and federal antidiscrimination laws described above.”

            And in the Arizona case, that cab driver would be asserting his rights under the STATE law that says HE can’t be discriminated against now for religious beliefs.

            1. Yes, as I said, he would have to take his employer to court and convince a jury that the actual reason they fired him was because of his assertion of his religious rights (religion is, and was already in AZ, a protected class). It’s the same process any member of a protected class would have to go through in a wrongful termination suit in an at-will employment state.

              I doubt a jury would be very sympathetic to the employee in such a suit, and the cost to pursue it would also be prohibitive.

              1. I think Christians naively thought that such a law would only be applicable to them, that only they hold such personal and deeply felt beliefs, and that maybe it would only be applied to the gay community.

                I would venture to guess that once it worked for Christians to apply it to the gay community, it would not be long before another Christian applied it to women who had abortions. And so on.

                And then a Muslim would use it, an orthodox Jew, a Scientologist, and even anyone else who belonged to some obscure religion.

                And who would ultimately decide all that? The courts…which religion was a true one (and I can’t wait for them to explain on what grounds they decided that), and which tenets are true.

                A nightmare for all involved.

                1. A nightmare for all involved.

                  Pretty adequately describes employment law in general.

        2. Yes they could be sued the likelihood of them prevailing is strong. You just walk in and tell him you are releasing him without cause. And when he brings up and issue, you plainly state that that has nothing to do with you terminating him. Don’t give ANY reason and he has zero chance at recourse.

          That’s why I always terminate employees without cause and I always have a third party in the room when I do it. And I refuse to discuss their termination once I hand them the letter. And I’ve been sued several times and it never went past deposition.

          1. You still are subject to vagaries of the judicial system, even if you don’t give cause. If you fire a 60 year old employee with stellar performance reviews each and every year, and you do it when he is one year from collecting retirement benefits, you have a problem.
            And the same could be said for that cab driver you employed for 15 years, and suddenly you fire him right after there were public demonstrations in front of your building.

            And as you said above, “likelihood” is hardly assurance.

          2. By the way, I might add this for further consideration…how many more lawsuits are we now going to burden businesses with from this law? There is no way to predict how many different people employed by companies will now assert their religious prerogatives in what they do in the marketplace. I would venture a guess that it would be substantial.

            1. how many more lawsuits are we now going to burden businesses with from this law?

              That would be zero since the law was vetoed.

              Also, you can sue on the same grounds under AZ law as it stands right now. Religion is already a protected class. The revised law might have invited more such suits due to its specificity and broader scope though.

              1. Exactly my point.

                See below that nearly 10 more states who are considering a similar law…the fact that Arizona vetoed it does not mean the issue has gone away. Regardless, we were speaking about the viability of the Arizona law itself. Sheldon himself mentions it, even if it already was vetoed.

          3. How many times have you done fired someone without cause, sloopy? A ballpark figure. I’m guessing it’s not a lot if you have zero paper trail and have gotten away with it so far.

            1. At-will employment is the norm in several states.

      2. And have to pay his unemployment compensation (which will be extended forever in the current political climate)

        1. Um, UE is not a direct payment from the last employer you moron. It’s a program administered by the state where employers pay into the program a percentage of their wages paid to employees based on the total number of employees.

          The money doesn’t even indirectly come from the former employer once you go past the 26 week mark. It then comes from special state or federal funds not part of the original UE fund.

          1. You pay a higher rate when you dump employees into the unemployment fund without cause.

    2. even the company then could not fire that individual, because he was in his rights to exercise his religious prerogatives.

      The company has the right to fire the cab driver for any reason at all (or should have). The cab company also has the right of free association.

    3. Lyft, Uber, Sidecar….

  32. Although I agree with the premise and arguments in your article, I think it is imperative that libertarians acknowledge the fact that the Civil Rights Act is unlikely to ever be repealed and that since libertarians support equal treatment under the law, we should support the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Civil Rights Act.

    1. So if we support equal treatment under the law, we should therefore support protected classes who are treated differently under the law?

      Impeccable logic.

      1. It’s almost as if the left thinks that so long as we’re adding to the rolls that get special treatment that we’re getting closer to equality.

        1. That’s exactly how they think. Who the Other is changes from situation to situation but the general drift is always the same.

      2. Hey, this would work. Make everyone a class of one. We’re all protected classes!

    2. While we’re at it, we should also move caffeine and chocolate to Schedule I. Equality of coercion, yeah!

  33. About 10 years ago there was a controversy about a pharmacist that wouldn’t sell birth control. All the typical statist talk followed.

    Now, on more than one occasion, I’ve gone to a pharmacist and they didn’t carry my prescription. So I did this crazy thing and went to another pharmacist.

    I’ll never understand the mentality of a person whose first thought, upon not getting what they want NOW!!!, is to get the State involved.

    1. I wonder if the culture of immediate gratification that has been developing over the last 20 years or so plays into this. I have a feeling that it does.

    2. The point isn’t to make contraceptives more available, it’s to punish crimethinkers for their crimethink. Either you renounce your beliefs/live in contradiction by playing ball with the state, or give up a job that you’ve devoted your life to and become a greeter at Wal Mart.

      1. Should not the pharmacy owner decide what medicines to offer?

  34. Personally, I believe the 1st Amendment’s freedom of religion clause deserves more consideration than it typically gets as our society sorts out questions of conscience versus access to services. The problem with Arizona’s remedy was its ambiguity and broad application across a wide range of services.

    I would look skeptically on a car dealer or grocer who refused service to gays on the grounds that it would violate their religious beliefs. The transactions they engage in have nothing to do with sexual preference, nor do they require participation in religiously proscribed activities. The situation is quite different for New Mexico photographer Elaine Huguenin, who was sued after refusing to shoot a gay commitment ceremony.

    Huguenin’s attorneys say that for their client, photographing the ceremony and compiling images in a book celebrating the event would amount to an endorsement of gay unions. They are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a state court’s ruling against her. I can understand the couple’s dismay at being refused, but we must also find room in our culture for people like Huguenin to do business in a way that doesn’t compromise deeply held beliefs.

    1. Wedding photographers aren’t hard to find.

      That case is about punishing people with disfavored religious beliefs. Gay activists are going to be seeking out conservative Christians in the marketplace and forcing them to make a decision between faith and livelihood.

      And the cosmos here at H+R will shake their heads and shrug that no one could have foreseen this.

      1. I do not find it as problematic to apply anti-discrimination laws towards the sale of off-the-shelf goods. A roll of film is still the same whether used by gay or straight, Jehovah’s Witness or Muslim.

        What I find problematic is the way some of these laws are written or interpreted effectively requiring the sale of a particular type of service. Refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding (a type of service) is equated to discrimination against homosexuals, even if the same photographer would photograph a homosexual’s birthday party. Refusing to photograph a Kingdom Hall meeting (a type of service) is equated to discrimination against Jehovah’s Witnesses, even if that same photographer would photograph a Jehovah’s Witness’s retirement party.

        1. There are distinctions even finer than that though. Would you argue that medical practitioners should be allowed to refuse treatment based on religious preferences?

          1. Many states have laws explicitly stating that doctors do not have an inherent duty to perform an abortion.

            There is a matter of practicality with such laws. It is unlikely a doctor morally opposed to abortion would train in the procedure, so forcing such a doctor to perform an abortion would not be the best of ideas, to put it mildly.

            1. The flip side of that coin is if the doctor finds it morally objectionable to provide fertility services to homosexual couples.

              I’m arguing because I’m yet to find a coherent set of principles that deals with all of the nasty details sufficiently. In general, I am for letting people be assholes and having the customers decide whether or not to buy their wares or protest their operation, social pressures vs governmental interference. But can this really be applied to everything?

              1. Presumably Catholic doctors are already not providing in-vitro services (which I assume you’re talking about) otherwise they don’t have much of a religious objection to stand on when it comes to homosexuals.

                That aside, the problems would arise when discrimination makes it a major pain in the ass for the discriminated-against group to obtain goods and services. If you live in a small town in Nevada and the only pharmacist for 100 miles is a devout Catholic, you’re screwed if you’re looking for contraceptives and he’s allowed to discriminate.

                Now, one could argue that maybe you should find someplace else to live or stock up somewhere else, but let’s not ignore that it does create problems.

                1. If you live in a small town in Nevada and the only pharmacist for 100 miles is a devout Catholic, you’re screwed if you’re looking for contraceptives and he’s allowed to discriminate.

                  How would it be discrimination to refuse to offer contraceptives to anyone.

                  Now, if said pharmacist was offering contraceptives to Muslims but not Catholics, that would be a different story…

          2. Yes, go to another doctor.

            I think that is his point, and the point of the article in general.

            There is no need of state force when economic forces provide a better alternative.

            1. Yet we are dealing with a system that limits access to health care through a multitude of regulations. We’re back to demunicipalizing the trash service as the answer to winning a war.


  35. But by “not be allowed,” I mean that the rest of us should nonviolently impose costs on those who offend decency by humiliating persons by the refusal of service.

    Does this work when the “rest of us” is a small minority of a particular community?

    Similarly a large majority could protest a small minority business causing it to be shutdown – one that might have squeaked by or thrived in its niche. Isn’t that the historical pattern?

    On a larger scale, the passing of California’s anti-gay initiatives was a form of mass protest that resulted in the government sanctioned blocking of gay marriage rights. To me it seemed like the difference was a single point of protest (the vote) versus an ongoing and dedicated effort to protest against gay marriage at every church or city hall or wherever. In this circumstance the results of the protest were bad resulting in a single mass forced refusal of service. If someone were gay they could just move to another state that allowed gay marriage – likewise could be said about protests on a much smaller level. Overall it just seems like a scale difference. The results of which can either be good or bad depending upon which side you are on.

  36. I’m amazed how many times, for a libertarian website, articles just tip-toe around the complete craziness of the law in Arizona. You speak above, Sheldon, about ‘business owners,’ when in fact that Arizona law specifically refers to owners AND individuals.

    This law was putting more burdens on businesses that usually you would condemn. It is inviting more lawsuits, inviting further reach of the judicial system into not only businesses but even religions. The courts were going to be forced to decide which religions are “true religions,” and even which religious tenets are “true and essential.”

    This law was going to be a nightmare for minorities, businesses, the judicial system…everyone. Even religions themselves. And yet, it seems you are bending over backwards to find other reasons for it to exist, with other solutions, rather than just condemning it on libertarian grounds.

    1. And I should add that there are nearly 10 more states moving along in the process to pass similar laws…Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and more.

      http://www.politico.com/story/…..03981.html

    2. This law was putting more burdens on businesses that usually you would condemn. It is inviting more lawsuits, inviting further reach of the judicial system into not only businesses but even religions. The courts were going to be forced to decide which religions are “true religions,” and even which religious tenets are “true and essential.”

      This entire paragraph describes the law in AZ precisely as it existed before the proposed law (which was vetoed, in case you missed the news). Your quarrel is with protected classes in general, and religion as a protected class in particular. Based on your previous postings here, I’m guessing you probably aren’t in favor of doing away with CRA public accommodation provisions though – just this one.

      1. This law was extending the reach of government PAST what ever reach it had before. And that should have been troublesome for any libertarian. The fact that the religious were blind to the reality that they were just begging for courts to get involved with what represented true religions and tenets is astonishing. Astonishing that they could not see that far ahead.

        And its also, to me anyway, just as astonishing that libertarians were not vocally condemning it for the added burdens to business as well.

        And this article is about the Arizona law in particular, so let me know which other laws you would like to discuss.

        1. The fact that the religious were blind to the reality that they were just begging for courts to get involved with what represented true religions and tenets is astonishing.

          It’s almost as if they still believe in “the democratic process”, or something. Poor, naive fools.

    3. Also, every article at Reason discussing the proposed law thus far has been against it – to the extent of calling AZ legislators “homophobic pricks” repeatedly. So I’m not sure who it is you are lecturing on the issue.

      1. I admit Tuccille had a fairly vocal opposition to the bill in his article. But this one did not…it was tepid at best, like most of the others here that spoke about it. It seems to me that this should have been to have been easily, and roundly, condemned on libertarian grounds.

        But fair enough, let me know if there was another one in addition to Tuccille.

      2. Hey PM- good to have a civil conversation with you. Thanks.

  37. Re: Tulpa,

    Why didn’t all those non-racist Southern whites vote out the segregationist governments then?

    As it is with everything with tyrannical rule, Jim Crow laws affected whites very little, the same way Minimum Wage Laws affect only a small portion of the population and nobody care about the other segregations placed into law, like IP or licensing laws.

    The fact that people did not care or consented to such laws does NOT change the fact that the laws themselves were a product of government nor makes anti-discrimination laws imposed on private transactions any less immoral.

  38. Thug: “Here’s some money, now bake me a cake”

    Baker: “No”

    Thug “Why not?”

    Baker: “Because I don’t like you.”

    Thug: “Is it because I’m gay/black/Mexican/wear
    patchouli oil perfume/have long hair?”

    Baker: “Yes”.

    Thug :”OK, I’m a gonna get Big Brother to come out here and take a
    bunch of your hard earned money and maybe even shut you down”.

    Baker:”My you are a very bad person, I was right not to serve you in the first place, now get offa my property!”

  39. the hypocrisy knows no bounds:

    http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

    According to the stae, not serving some customers is bad, but not adhereing to contractual obligaions becaus of relgion is OK.

  40. If you wish to discriminate against people invidiously, then you have the perfect right to do so in your private home (even though the road on which you live may be public, a private home is not a business, nor is it catering to the general public, and it is therefore not offering an invitation to enter the premises). But your business is not your private home. By its nature, it is open to the public and the only way the public can reach your business is through some use of the public infrastructure. If you don’t want to accept the taxpayer-defined rules of access, then don’t open for business. You do not have any right to make use of another person’s property without his consent, and that includes the taxpayers of this nation.

    1. Ah, so the fact that money is extorted from millions means that those same millions can decide for me how I decide to run my business. You are just another thug.

    2. And so the thinking that the “government” pre-exists all human interactions and that there is only one (for now) exception to the idea that the State rules all and everywhere – your humble little home. How far we have come.

      And the whole argument about “public infrastructure” as an argument. How do people reach my private home – teleportation? You only prove how government encroachment upon individuals occurs. The government takes half your money, regulates another 20%, throws it around however it wants, and because it set itself up as the Master of Infrastructure, it gets to tell you how to conduct your business.

      Look, I don’t like bigotry by cake makers against “cake boys” either. I don’t like bars layered with smoke. There’s a lot of things I don’t like. But what a dislike far more is the ever present State that gets to regulate each and every transaction and interaction outside the doorstep of our “private homes”. And I also dislike painfully circular logic that purports to justify such. I might dislike smokey bars and bigoted cake makers but I’d prefer to be disinterested in the matter as long as life and property are free form coercion. I certainly don’t want to hire third party agents to settle the matter. If I must make a comment, I’d wish people would simply be happy that two people have found some degree of happiness in each others company that they want to celebrate it with cake and leave it at that.

    3. So, if a member of the KKK in his robes comes into a Black owned photographer’s shop and demands that the photographer take pictures of his KKK-themed wedding, it’s going to happen, right? You’re in favor of forcing that to happen too?

      How about if the Westboro Baptist Church demands that a gay baker make a wedding cake for his wedding in a chapel belonging to the Westboro Baptist Church?

      How about if a Jew demands that a Muslim caterer supply pork to the Jew’s Christian friends who will be attending the Jew’s son’s Bar Mitvah?

      You know something like this is eventually going to happen somewhere, and I know you want everything to be equal, so I want your opinion now so we can resolve this up front.

  41. “Right off, I’d ask how a ‘compelling state interest’?whatever that may be?could license government to impose burdens, substantial or otherwise, on anyone’s peaceful exercise of religion.”

    Answer:
    It is a compelling state interest for the state to protect the lives of its citizens. Hence, an ambulance driver, or the owner of a gas station in the middle of the Arizona desert could reasonably be required to offer service to a person whom they might find morally objectionable (as long as that person did not pose a physical threat). Freedom of association has to give way in cases like this, just as freedom of speech does in cases like a conspiracy to commit murder, or inciting a violent riot.

    On the other hand, things like baking a cake or providing flowers to a wedding don’t affect any compelling state interest: this is why the proposed Arizona law was unobjectionable (unlike the similar Kansas one). So all the hysteria about it was completely unwarranted, and Richman is certainly right about that part. And, as he says, the same logically goes for race or sex or really anything at all. Nevertheless, there can be valid reasons for even a minimal state to restrict freedom of association or require the provision of service, so he goes too far in that part of what he says.

    1. My right to begin a drive through the desert with a half-empty tank of fuel supercedes your right to control your legally-purchased property in a manner of your choosing. Got it. Now, pump me some gas, you bigot.

    2. It is a compelling state interest for the state to protect the lives of its citizens. Hence, an ambulance driver, or the owner of a gas station in the middle of the Arizona desert could reasonably be required to offer service to a person whom they might find morally objectionable (as long as that person did not pose a physical threat). Freedom of association has to give way in cases like this,

      An ambulance driver contracts to provide said service to all up front and does so voluntarily. Freedom of association has NOT given way in your example.

    3. It is a compelling state interest for the state to protect the lives of its citizens.

      If that were so, the state would have a legitimate power to coerce any behavior that would purportedly extend the lifespan of its citizens according to whatever metric it chose.

      Hello totalitarian mandates on diet, exercise, sexual behavior, entertainment choices, and every other choice the individual presently makes.

  42. I think it is repugnant for people to require that people accept behavior that is a known deadly disease spreader. Requiring people to accept the homosexual lifestyle is the same as inviting the neighborhood kids over to play with the rabied dog. If you are a grown adult, you have every right to practice your beliefs amongst yourself, but you have no right to impose them on those that don’t agree. I guarantee these same people that want to force people to accept behavior of others would not accept pedophilia. Or would they?

    1. “I think it is repugnant for people to require that people accept behavior that is a known deadly disease spreader.”

      So you’re ok with lesbianism, but not male homosexuality?

      “Requiring people to accept the homosexual lifestyle is the same as inviting the neighborhood kids over to play with the rabied dog. If you are a grown adult, you have every right to practice your beliefs amongst yourself, but you have no right to impose them on those that don’t agree. I guarantee these same people that want to force people to accept behavior of others would not accept pedophilia. Or would they?”

      The comparisons to rabies and pedophilia are absurd and ridiculous. I do agree that people have the right to practice their beliefs, and not impose their beliefs on other people who are not committing aggression, but that goes both ways. Are you willing to not use the government to enforce your preferred vision of society on others who are not committing aggression? If you view homosexuality as equivalent to pedophilia, then why don’t you support laws banning it (unless you support legalizing pedophilia, then you wouldn’t be a hypocrite)?

    2. Anally Inflicted Death Sentence lol
      Fucking idiot
      AIDS is through anyones blood not just Teh Gayyyyyyy11!!!!!111OMGGGGGGG!!11111!!

  43. What bugs me about the story, as a Christian, is that there are Christians who are willingly foregoing an excellent opportunity to share the Gospel. Really, Christians should put up signs that say “We specialize in Same-Sex Weddings”. You don’t have to agree with your clients concerning the validity of “same-sex marriage” to take their money, and there is no law (so far) prohibiting you from expressing your personal views as you work with the clients.

    1. cavalier973|3.2.14 @ 5:15PM|#
      “What bugs me about the story, as a Christian, is that there are Christians who are willingly foregoing an excellent opportunity to share the Gospel.”

      That is certainly true, and I’m sure it would keep many folks from dealing with them.
      You can ‘share the gospel’ all you please with those who care to listen; The rest of us will ask you to kindly keep it to yourself.

  44. Those who vote to empower the govt. more and more become more reliant upon it to force change to meet their agendas rather than utilizing that forgone power to enact change in a natural form.

    1. “The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” – John Stuart Mill

  45. One thing I never quite understood. How does not prove he/she is gay? Is the assertion that people should boycott others who refuse service to those who *claim* to be gay? Suppose the ‘other’ is refusing service because the person being denied service, by claiming to be gay, is also implicitly claiming to engage in a sexual act that is seen as repugnant. Is that person disallowed to refuse service because of someone’s behaviour (whether gay or not) in addition to race, gender, or claimed sexual orientation or should those with proper beliefs also boycott the individual refusing service for behavior, too? Is there then really any situation where an individual should NOT be subject to a boycott because of refusal of service to someone?

  46. “We Can Oppose Bigotry Without Politicians”

    Actually “We Can Do Everything Without Politicians”

    Is all a growing mind needs to know.

  47. Here’s the problem with relying solely on community organizers to deal with bigots of any stripe, instead of the government stepping in:

    Neither side will come to terms with the fact that liberty of conscience would ever truly be secured for their side alone. The risk would remain that the veneer of civility within the community could be swiftly peeled back to reveal the persecuting spirit of either side, of those who know they are right, believe their issue is critical, and are convinced that their actions are worth the risk. (Ref. Busey, 2008)

    Also, isn’t banding together and electing representatives to government who could deal legislatively with issues of bigotry a form of community organizing?

    1. Also, isn’t banding together and electing representatives to government who could deal legislatively with issues of bigotry a form of community organizing?

      Not if the legislative solution is to deprive individuals of their property and free association rights.

      Democracy, lambs, lion, dinner etc.

  48. Doesn’t anyone find it strange that anti-discrimination laws which tells us that “if you refuse someone we will use whatever state determines as a difference (that we are claiming doesn’t exist by making this law) so that we can find grounds for prosecuting you more harshly because of that difference ( which “doesn’t exist” according to virtually all supporters of anti-discrimination laws) even if that was not your intended reason for committing the offense against the individual so as to use the event for political leverage for largely unsupported ideology.
    the laws may have had a place at one point in time but they dont need to exist anymore because of our evolution as a society, and by scaling back anti-discrimination laws we may finally find out we all are the same basic humans underneath all of our superficial differences… and more importantly the only color that should matter when running a business is green
    Discriminating against people for any reason is pointless when they have money you can make off of them.
    Next we will see a business getting thrown under the bus for discriminating against the poor for prosecuting someone for stealing who didn’t have the money to pay because FYTW

    1. “unsupported ideology” i mean of course having the government step in to force us to cooperate at gunpoint

  49. As someone who doesn’t believe in unions or the minimum wage law should exist and also supports NAFTA and Ron Paul-style military non-interventionism, this article is pure ideology and no pragmatism. Unless you’re a bigot or ideologue there’s no reason to obsess over anti-discrimination laws. Then again I also don’t believe people should be able to have concerts at 3:00 a.m. or that civilians should have nuclear weapons because i’m supposedly some anti-libertarian monster (there’s a reason I have classical liberal and not libertarian in my username) even though I believe in less government than some of the people who work at the Cato Institute (Daniel fake-tan Mitchell in particular).

    Sincerely,
    Someone who was a Rothbardian in their youth

    1. But the question is do you think civilians should have a militia with conventional weapons and training to repel potential invasion by federal forces?

      1. I oppose assault rifle bans and I support conceal carry, but I don’t believe in militia nonsense.

  50. Start working at home with Google! Just work for few hours and have more time with friends and family. I earn up to $500 per week. It’s a great work at home opportunity. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. Linked here http://www.Pow6.com

  51. The ‘slave’ would retain a right of self defense and be able to escape and or kill the owner with legal impunity. Not to mention that the government should protect his rights by prosecuting the slave owner.

  52. Thanks for this very timely and brilliant article.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.